Mohammad Rash v. Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1990) (“Summary d
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court screened a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and found it stated a cognizable claim. The court ordered the respondents to file a response, set a briefing schedule, and issued a limited injunction preventing the petitioner's removal from the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition survives screening“Here, based on the alleged background, the Court finds that Petitioner has adequately stated a claim that is cognizable enough to warrant an answer.” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard for screening habeas petitions, requiring only that the claim be cognizable and not plainly frivolous. The order cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority for this low threshold. |
Limited injunction issued“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are also preliminarily ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo and allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.” | agree with court The court relied on the All Writs Act to maintain jurisdiction over the pending habeas matter by preserving the status quo. This is a standard procedural mechanism in immigration and detention cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the screening standard for habeas petitions and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent. The issuance of the limited injunction is supported by the All Writs Act and is a common practice to preserve jurisdiction in detention cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMMAD RASH, Case No.: 26cv0008-LL-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION, 13 v. SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND ISSUING LIMITED 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of INJUNCTION Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mohammad Rash’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Courts must screen habeas petitions 20 and dismiss them “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 21 petitioner is not entitled to relief.” See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 22 States District Courts, Rule 4; id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of Rules Governing Section 23 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). To survive screening, a petitioner need only 24 make out a claim that is sufficiently “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the 25 government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024). Indeed, “as 26 long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify 27 summary dismissal under Rule 4.” Id.; see Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th 28 Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition 1 vague or conclusory or palpably incredible or patently frivolous or false.” (citations, 2 || quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). Here, based on the alleged background, the Court 3 || finds that Petitioner has adequately stated a claim that is cognizable enough to warrant an 4 || answer. 5 Accordingly, by January 13, 2026, Respondents shall file a response to the Petition. 6 || By January 20, 2026, Petitioner may file a reply. Following briefing, the Court will set a 7 || hearing or take the matter under submission pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1. Respondents, 8 ||their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or 9 || participation with them are also preliminarily ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from 10 |/this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo and allow the 11 Court to provide a reasoned decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (“[AJll courts established 12 || by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 13 jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”); E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 25- 14 || cv-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (‘Courts around the 15 country exercise their authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over 16 || pending immigration matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). The Clerk 17 transmit this Order and the Petition to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern 18 || District of California. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 2, 2026 NO 21 DE | 22 Honorable Linda Lopez 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28