Alexi Ayala Perez v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by an ICE detainee alleging violations of the INA, the Fifth Amendment, and ICE regulations, and found that summary dismissal was unwarranted. The court ordered the respondents to file a response, set a deadline for a reply, and issued a status quo order prohibiting the transfer of the petitioner outside the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the habeas petition“Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, which holds that summary dismissal is appropriate only where allegations are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The court determined the petition did not meet this threshold. While the order does not detail the specific factual allegations that saved the petition from dismissal, the application of the cited legal standard to the conclusion that dismissal is 'unwarranted' is procedurally consistent with the cited authority. |
Issuance of status quo order prohibiting transfer of petitioner“To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the petition.” | agree with court The court relied on Doe v. Bondi to support its jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction and while the petition is pending. This is a standard equitable power exercised by federal courts to ensure the court's jurisdiction is not rendered moot by the removal of the subject of the suit (the detainee). The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and applies it to deny dismissal. It also correctly cites authority for the court's power to issue a status quo order to prevent the transfer of the detainee, which is a common and necessary procedural step in immigration habeas cases to maintain jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a preliminary order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXI AYALA PEREZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO RESPOND 13 v. 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On December 25, 2025, Petitioner Alexi Ayala Perez (“Petitioner”) filed a petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 19 Petitioner claims that he is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in 20 violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, and ICE’s own 21 regulations governing the termination of parole. [Id. at 2, 12–14.] He principally seeks 22 immediate release, or alternatively, a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. [Id. at 15.] 23 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 24 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 25 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 26 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 l. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by January 5, 2026. The 3 ||response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents 4 ||relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 5 2. Petitioner may file a reply by January 8, 2026. 6 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 7 ||employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 8 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 9 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the petition.! 10 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 11 || Office with a copy of the Petition and this order. 12 It is SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: December 29, 2025 ( Oe — 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 8 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”’) (collecting cases).