Yojelsy David Colmenares Mendoza v. Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, San Diego; and Warden, Otay Mesa Detention
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — D.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detained non-citizen. It ordered the government to respond to the petition, set a briefing schedule, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the United States to preserve the court's jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Respondents to show cause why the Petition should not be granted“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response by January 9, 2026.” | agree with court agree with court |
Setting a briefing schedule for an optional Traverse“Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by January 16, 2026.” | agree with court agree with court |
Staying removal of Petitioner to preserve jurisdiction“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court agree with court |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural step in a habeas corpus case. It correctly cites recent district court and Supreme Court authority supporting the court's inherent power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm (removal) while the petition is pending. The reasoning is consistent with established habeas corpus practice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOJELSY DAVID COLMENARES Case No.: 26-cv-11-JES-VET MENDOZA, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S. 15 HABEAS CORPUS; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 16 ENFORCEMENT, SAN DIEGO; and (2) SETTING BRIEFING WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 17 SCHEDULE; AND CENTER, 18 Respondents. (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 20 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Yojelsy David Colmenares Mendoza’s (“Petitioner”) 23 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Respondents 24 are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted 25 by filing a written Response by January 9, 2026. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional 26 Traverse in support of the Petition by January 16, 2026. 27 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 28 not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 1 || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 2 ||Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 3 ||determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 4 || pending resolution from the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 5 || ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 6 ||restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 7 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 8 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 9 || further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 10 || that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 11 applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 12 ||}CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 13 ||Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: January 7, 2026 16 Sa— 17 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28