Katya Alexandra Garcia-Henriquez v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 4 ||appro
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the petitioner's detention at the Otay Mesa Detention Center and an accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied summary dismissal, ordered the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and issued a status quo order prohibiting the petitioner's transfer outside the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion. The Clerk shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee.” | agree with court The petitioner submitted an affidavit attesting to an inability to pay the filing fee, which satisfies the statutory requirements for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court's decision to grant the motion is consistent with the record recited in the order. |
Denying Summary Dismissal and Ordering Respondents to Show Cause“The Court also finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. ... Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 23, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition should not be granted” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, finding the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. By ordering the respondents to show cause, the court initiated the standard adversarial process for resolving the habeas petition, which is the correct procedural step when a petition is facially sufficient. |
Issuing a Status Quo Order Prohibiting Transfer“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling in this matter.” | agree with court The court relied on its inherent power to preserve the status quo to maintain jurisdiction over the petitioner while the habeas petition is pending. This is a standard and appropriate measure in habeas corpus cases involving detained individuals to prevent the court from being deprived of its jurisdiction over the person. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture, grants the IFP motion based on the affidavit, applies the correct standard for summary dismissal, and issues a standard status quo order to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the motions and the nature of the habeas petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KATYA ALEXANDRA GARCIA- Case No.: 3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW HENRIQUEZ, 10 ORDER: Petitioner, 11 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA 13 AND DETENTION CENTER, et al., 14 Respondents. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 15 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 17 [Docs. 1–3]
18 19 20 On January 13, 2026, Petitioner Katya Alexandra Garcia-Henriquez (“Petitioner”), 21 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Unlawful and Prolonged 22 Detention (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Emergency Motion 23 for Expedited Review (Doc. 3). In the Petition, Petitioner claims she is being detained at 24 the Otay Mesa Detention Center in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 25 Clause. (Doc. 1 at 1.) 26 That same day, Petitioner also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court 27 without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Motion”) in which she attests she has no means to 28 pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 1 || Motion. The Clerk shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 2 The Court also finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See 3 || Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 4 ||appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 5 ||incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). Respondents are hereby 6 || ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 23, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why 7 || the Petition should not be granted by: (1) filing a written response; (2) filing as exhibits all 8 documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition, 9 |\including, any documents reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history and any decisions 10 |/issued by the immigration court to the extent they exist; and (3) making a recommendation 11 regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner MAY FILE a reply on or before 12 || January 30, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time 13 the Parties shall await further order from the Court. 14 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner 15 || SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling 16 ||in this matter. See Doe v. Bondi, Case No.: 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *1 17 ||(S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo 18 || while determining whether [they have] subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a 19 || petition is pending resolution from the court.”’) (collecting cases). 20 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition 21 ||(Doc. 1), the Emergency Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 3), and this Order to the 22 || United States Attorney’s Office. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||DATE: January 16, 2026 2 RBar, Margy □□ 6 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28