Miguel Antonio-Gonzalez v. Jeremy Casey, in his official as Warden of Imperial Reginal Detention Facility, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs 1 || Act, from removing the plaintiffs from t
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detainee and ordered the respondents to file a response. The court also issued a limited injunction prohibiting the removal of the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondents to file a response to the petition“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business January 27, 2026.” | agree with court The court has discretion to manage the docket and require a response to a habeas petition. The deadline set is reasonable and standard for this type of proceeding. |
Injunction prohibiting removal of 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 to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court cites the All Writs Act and case law supporting the use of such orders to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo while the merits are litigated. This is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas cases involving removal risks. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling in a habeas corpus case. It correctly identifies the need for a response and uses the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction by enjoining removal. The cited authorities, while district court decisions, support the proposition that such stays are appropriate to maintain the status quo. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANTONIO-GONZALEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-0286-BJC-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS AND PROHIBITING 14 JEREMY CASEY, in his official as TRANSFER OF PETITIONER Warden of Imperial Reginal Detention 15 Facility, et. al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On January 16, 2026, Petitioner Miguel Antonio-Gonzalez filed a Petition for a Writ 20 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the petition, 21 this Court deems it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response. Additionally, the 22 Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to 23 provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25- 24 CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under the 25 All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or deportation 26 of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 27 relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 28 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs 1 || Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve the court’s 2 || jurisdiction). 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 4 l. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 5 business January 27, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 6 || orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 7 2. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business February 3, 8 ||2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 9 || that time. 10 3. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 11 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 12 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to 13 || maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at 14 || hand. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: January 20, 2026 17 19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28