Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BURHANETTIN TUNA OZCAN, Case No.: 26cv2-LL-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 13 v. TO PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Burhanettin Tuna Ozcan is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. 18 Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Pending 19 before the Court is his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF 20 No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner is a Turkish national who left Turkey because he alleges that he 21 was beaten and threatened there by both religious and state authorities. Pet. ¶ 38. On or 22 about March 4, 2023, the United States granted him parole and released him on his own 23 recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). On or about March 15, 2023, the United States 24 commenced removal proceedings against him under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Id. ¶ 40. On 25 September 5, 2023, Petitioner applied for asylum, and that petition is currently being 26 adjudicated in immigration court. Id. ¶ 43. Subsequently, the United States issued work 27 authorization to Petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(08). Id. ¶ 44. After living and 28 working in the United States for over 2 years, Petitioner was detained and now remains at 1 the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. ¶ 5. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing 2 Respondents to order his immediate release and an order prohibiting him from being 3 enrolled in an “Alternative to Detention” program and requiring an ankle monitor. Id. at 4 Prayer for Relief. 5 The Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 6 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a reasoned decision, 7 in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is removed from this 8 district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. 9 Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their authority under the All Writs 10 Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration matters by preserving the status 11 quo.” (collecting cases)). 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 13 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 14 not be granted by filing a written Return on or before January 16, 2026. The Return shall 15 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 16 Respondents shall serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 17 2. Petitioner may, but is not required, to reply to the Return by filing a Traverse 18 on or before January 23, 2026. 19 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 20 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 21 notified otherwise. 22 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 23 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 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 Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 2 ||to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 3 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 4 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: January 5, 2026 NO g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28