Sergio Escobar-Mendoza v. Christopher J. LaRose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Gregory J. Archambeault, Director, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs; Kristi Noem
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s 6 ||request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and 7 || ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in 8 || active concert and participati
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detained individual to challenge his removal. The court ordered a stay of removal to preserve jurisdiction, set a schedule for the Respondents to file a response and the Petitioner to file a traverse, and required the Respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of removal of Petitioner from the District to preserve jurisdiction“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner SHALL NOT be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The decision follows from the cited authorities establishing that federal courts have the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm while a habeas petition is pending. The order cites specific case law (Doe v. Bondi, A.M. v. LaRose, Nguyen v. Scott) and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) supporting this equitable power. |
Order to Show Cause and setting of briefing schedule“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas corpus cases to allow the government to respond to the allegations before the court makes a final determination on the merits. The schedule is reasonable and consistent with local rules for expedited habeas proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on recent, relevant district court authority and a cited Supreme Court case to support the stay of removal. The reasoning directly addresses the need to preserve jurisdiction, which is a recognized equitable power of federal courts in habeas cases. The briefing schedule is standard. There are no apparent gaps in the legal reasoning provided for the specific relief granted.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERGIO ESCOBAR-MENDOZA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0078-JES-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, SENIOR 15 JURISDICTION WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 16 CENTER; GREGORY J. (2) SETTING BRIEFING ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR, SAN 17 SCHEDULE; and DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, IMMIGRATION 18 AND CUSTOMS; KRISTI NOEM, (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS HOMELAND SECURITY; and PAM CORPUS 20 BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL 21 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Sergio Escobar-Mendoza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 27 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction 28 pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner SHALL NOT be removed from this District 1 |}unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC- 2 || JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction 3 || to preserve the status quo while determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over 4 ||a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. 5 || LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s 6 ||request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and 7 || ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in 8 || active concert and participation with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United 9 || States or this District pending further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 10 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent 11 |/irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen 12 ||v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) 13 || (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 14 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 15 granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2026. The 16 Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in 17 ||the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is necessary. 18 ||Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. Petitioner may 19 || file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, 20 || January 12, 2026. Upon receipt of the Response, the Court will consider the matter fully 21 briefed, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise ordered, and the matter will be 22 ||taken under submission. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: January 7, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28