Luis Angel Onate Vargas v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than January 2 ||27,
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by an individual detained by ICE, claiming violations of immigration laws and a specific district court decision. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the Government to file a response by January 27, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring the Government to respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, finding the petition was not 'vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.' Based on the recitation that the petition cites specific legal grounds (immigration laws and a specific case), the decision to proceed to a response is procedurally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural step in a habeas case. It correctly identifies the threshold for summary dismissal and applies it to the petition. It does not reach the merits, which is appropriate at this stage. The citation to Kourteva is the correct standard for this district/circuit context regarding summary dismissal of habeas petitions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS ANGEL ONATE VARGAS, Case No. 26-cv-00310-BAS-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING THE 13 v. GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On January 18, 2026, Petitioner Luis Angel Onate Vargas filed a Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner claims that he is 20 being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in violation of the immigration 21 laws and the Central District’s decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV- 22 01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (Id.) 23 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 24 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 25 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 26 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 27 Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 28 l 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than January 2 ||27, 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and 3 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the 4 || Petition. 5 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than February 3, 6 ||2026. 7 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 8 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 1] | DATED: January 20, 2026 (yatta Bahar 12 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge B United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a.