Mahmod Seyam v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Indeed, “as long as a petition has any potential merit, 27 it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal under Rule 4.” Id.; see Vasquez,
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court screened a habeas petition and motion for a temporary restraining order filed by an immigration detainee. It found the petition cognizable, ordered the government to respond, and issued a limited injunction preventing the petitioner's removal from the district pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 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 correctly applied the low threshold for habeas screening, requiring only that the claim be 'cognizable' and not 'palpably incredible or patently frivolous.' The order cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority for this standard. |
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order granted in part (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 (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) to maintain jurisdiction and preserve the status quo. This is a standard and accepted practice in immigration detention cases to prevent mootness while the court reviews the merits. |
Briefing schedule set“Accordingly, by January 7, 2026, Respondents shall file a response to the Petition Motion for TRO. By January 12, 2026, Petitioner may file a reply.” | agree with court Procedural scheduling order consistent with local rules and the need for expedited review in habeas matters. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the low threshold for habeas screening under Rule 4 and Ninth Circuit precedent. The issuance of a limited injunction to maintain the status quo is a standard and appropriate use of the All Writs Act in immigration detention cases to prevent mootness. The reasoning is concise but legally sound for a screening order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAHMOD SEYAM, Case No.: 25cv3850-LL-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION, 13 v. SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND ISSUING LIMITED 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Department INJUNCTION of Homeland Security, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 18 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Mahmod Seyam’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 20 ECF Nos. 1, 2. Courts must screen habeas petitions and dismiss them “if it plainly appears 21 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” 22 See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4; id., 23 Rule 1(b) (permitting use of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus 24 petition”). To survive screening, a petitioner need only make out a claim that is sufficiently 25 “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 26 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024). Indeed, “as long as a petition has any potential merit, 27 it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal under Rule 4.” Id.; see 28 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is 1 || appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory or palpably 2 ||incredible or patently frivolous or false.” (citations, quotation marks, and brackets 3 ||omitted)). Here, based on the alleged background, the Court finds that Petitioner has 4 || adequately stated a claim that is cognizable enough to warrant an answer. 5 Accordingly, by January 7, 2026, Respondents shall file a response to the Petition 6 Motion for TRO. By January 12, 2026, Petitioner may file a reply. Following briefing, 7 Court will set a hearing or take the matter under submission pursuant to Local Civil 8 ||Rule 7.1. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 9 || acting in active concert or participation with them are also preliminarily ENJOINED from 10 |;/removing Petitioner from this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the 11 status quo and allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 12 ||(“[A]ll courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or 13 || appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles 14 || of law.”); E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 25-cv-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. July 15 |} 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their authority under the All Writs Act to 16 || maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration matters by preserving the status quo.” 17 (collecting cases)). The Clerk shall transmit this Order and the Petition and Motion for 18 || TRO to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern 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