Rui Luo v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Rui Luo, a Chinese asylum seeker and spouse of a U.S. citizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging unlawful detention by ICE. The court ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted and enjoined them from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondents to show cause why the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before January 16, 2026.” | agree with court The court is initiating the habeas corpus proceeding by requiring the custodian to answer the petition, which is the standard procedural step under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (often applied by analogy to § 2241 cases). The order correctly sets a deadline for the return and allows for a traverse. |
Injunction enjoining respondents from removing petitioner from the United States or the district“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.” | agree with court The court relies on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo and maintain jurisdiction. This is a common practice in immigration habeas cases to prevent mootness if the petitioner is removed before the court can rule. The citation to E-C-R- v. Noem supports this practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order initiating a habeas corpus proceeding. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petition and the authority for the preliminary injunction to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature. It does not address the merits of the due process claim, which is appropriate at this stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RUI LUO, Case No.: 25cv3848-LL-VET 10 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 11 v. TO PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 12 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et 13 al., 14 Respondents. 15 Petitioner Rui Luo is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland 16 Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Pending before the Court is her Petition 17 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner is a 18 Chinese asylum seeker and spouse of a U.S. citizen. Id. ¶ 1. Petitioner alleges she was 19 unlawfully detained on October 9, 2025, which she alleges violates the Due Process Clause 20 of the Fifth Amendment. Id. She seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to 21 order her immediate release, or alternatively for a bond hearing, among other remedies. Id. 22 at Prayer for Relief. 23 The Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 24 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a reasoned decision, 25 in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is removed from this 26 27 28 1 district. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. 2 Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their authority under the All Writs 3 Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration matters by preserving the status 4 quo.” (collecting cases)). 5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 6 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 7 not be granted by filing a written Return on or before January 16, 2026. The Return shall 8 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 9 Respondents shall serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 10 2. Petitioner may, but is not required, to reply to the Return by filing a Traverse 11 on or before January 23, 2026. 12 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 13 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 14 notified otherwise. 15 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 16 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 17 Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 18 to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 28 1 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 2 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: January 5, 2026 NO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28