Vinod Kumar v. Pam Bondi, Attorney General et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 4 ||appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vag
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by an ICE detainee and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied summary dismissal, ordered the government to respond to the petition, and issued a status quo order prohibiting the petitioner's transfer outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner attested to having no means to pay the filing fee, which satisfies the statutory requirement for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
Summary dismissal of Petition denied“The Court also finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, finding the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. The order recites specific claims regarding Fifth Amendment due process violations, supporting the decision to proceed to a response. |
Order to Show Cause issued to Respondents“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 28, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition should not be granted” | agree with court This is a standard procedural step in a habeas corpus action where the petition is not dismissed on its face. The court sets specific deadlines and requirements for the government's response. |
Status quo order prohibiting transfer of Petitioner“Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling in this matter.” | agree with court The court cites Doe v. Bondi to support its authority to preserve the status quo to maintain jurisdiction. This is a common equitable remedy in habeas cases to prevent mootness or loss of jurisdiction due to transfer. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and properly exercises its equitable power to maintain the status quo to preserve jurisdiction. The citations are appropriate for the procedural stage of the litigation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINOD KUMAR, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00337-RBM-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 PAM BONDI, Attorney General et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondents. [Doc. 2]; AND 16 (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 17 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1] 18 19 20 21 On January 15, 2026, Petitioner Vinod Kumar (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, 22 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) 23 In the Petition, Petitioner claims he is being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 24 Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 25 13; see Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 2–3.) 26 That same day, Petitioner also filed a Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with 27 Declaration in Support (“IFP Motion”) in which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 28 filing fee. (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion. 1 || 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 28, 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 the Form I-830 referenced in the Petition (see Doc. 1-2 § 25), and any documents 10 reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history to the extent they exist; and (3) making a 11 recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner MAY FILE a 12 |}reply on or before February 11, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under 13 ||submission at that time and 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) and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || DATE: January 21, 2026 cReeathreac 25 . RUTH BERMU@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28