A.A. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 18 at 1 n.1) and to �
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym and the need for supplemental briefing following the transfer of a habeas corpus petition from the Eastern District of California. The court granted the motion to proceed under a pseudonym in part, denied the request for redactions without prejudice, and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing or a statement of submission by February 10, 2026, while enjoining the transfer of the petitioner outside the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed with Pseudonym granted in part“Petitioner’s use of a pseudonym is therefore GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard from Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., balancing the need for anonymity against the presumption of public identity. Given the petitioner's allegations of sensitive persecution and the lack of opposition from respondents, granting the pseudonym is consistent with the law and the record. |
Request for redaction of names and limiting information sharing denied without prejudice“Because Petitioner has not cited any authority or arguments in support of these additional requests, the Court DENIES such requests without prejudice.” | agree with court The court denied the specific requests for redaction and limited sharing because the petitioner failed to provide legal authority or argument. Denying without prejudice is a procedural mechanism that allows the petitioner to re-argue with proper support, which is a reasonable response to an unsupported request. |
Order for supplemental briefing or statement of submission“Petitioner and Respondents are ORDERED to file, on or before February 10, 2026: (1) any supplemental briefing necessary to this Court’s determination of the issues raised in the Petition; or (2) a statement indicating that they wish to submit the Petition on their currently-filed briefs.” | agree with court The court ordered supplemental briefing to ensure it had a complete record after the case was transferred from another district. This is a standard procedural step to allow the receiving court to review the merits effectively, especially when amendments, though minor, were made to the petition. |
Enjoining transfer of petitioner outside the Southern District of California“Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling in this matter.” | agree with court The court cited Doe v. Bondi to support its authority to preserve the status quo to maintain jurisdiction. This is a common and appropriate measure in habeas cases to prevent the petitioner from being moved out of the court's jurisdiction while the petition is pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's test for pseudonyms and cites appropriate authority for preserving the status quo. The denial of the redaction request is based on the petitioner's failure to provide argument, which is a fair procedural ruling. The order for supplemental briefing is a logical step after a transfer.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.A., Case No.: 3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of U.S. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 PROCEED WITH PSEUDONYM Respondents. [Docs. 3, 19]; 16 17 (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 18 20 On January 15, 2026, Petitioner A.A. (“Petitioner”) filed a Verified Petition for Writ 21 of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to §2241 in the United States District Court, 22 Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1.) That same day, Petitioner also filed an Ex Parte 23 Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: 24 Preliminary Injunction (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 2), and a Motion to Proceed with 25 Pseudonym (“Pseudonym Motion”) (Doc. 3). 26 After the Parties had fully briefed the TRO Motion and the Pseudonym Motion (see 27 Doc. 5), and after a ruling had been issued (see Doc. 11), the instant action was transferred 28 1 to this District on January 21, 2026. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner then filed an Amended Petition 2 (Doc. 17), an Amended TRO Motion (Doc. 18), and an Amended Pseudonym Motion 3 (Doc. 19). Petitioner asserts that the only amendments made were to correct the caption 4 (see Doc. 18 at 1 n.1) and to “reflect the correct detention facility/warden and venue” in 5 the Petition (Doc. 17 ¶ 1.) 6 I. PSEUDONYM MOTION 7 Although petitioners must typically identify themselves in pleadings under Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), they may “use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when 9 nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment, 10 injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 11 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). The Court must 12 “balance the need for anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are 13 public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. 14 Petitioner alleges that he should be allowed to proceed pseudonymously because he 15 survived persecution of a sensitive nature and disclosure of his identity could lead to further 16 stigma and harm. (Doc. 3 at 3–4). Respondents do not oppose the Pseudonym Motion. 17 (See Doc. 8.) The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient need for 18 anonymity and that the use of a pseudonym here will not prejudice Respondents or 19 diminish the public’s understanding of the issues or resolution of Petitioner’s claim. 20 Petitioner’s use of a pseudonym is therefore GRANTED. 21 Petitioner also requests that any names or identifying information relating to him 22 and his family be redacted and that the sharing of this information be limited to what is 23 reasonably necessary for the litigation. (Doc. 3 at 6–7.) Because Petitioner has not cited 24 any authority or arguments in support of these additional requests, the Court DENIES such 25 requests without prejudice. Accordingly, the Pseudonym Motion (Docs. 3, 19) is 26 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 27 II. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 28 Pursuant to Judge Dale A. Drozd’s order in the Eastern District of California (see 1 || Doc. 5), the Parties had fully briefed the TRO Motion before this action was transferred to 2 ||this Court. Petitioner asserts that the only amendments made were to correct the caption 3 the TRO Motion (see Doc. 18 at 1 n.1) and to “reflect the correct detention 4 || facility/warden and venue” in the Petition (Doc. 17 { 1.) 5 As it appears that the legal claims at issue remain the same, Petitioner and 6 ||Respondents are ORDERED to file, on _or before February 10, 2026: (1) any 7 ||supplemental briefing necessary to this Court’s determination of the issues raised in the 8 Petition; or (2) a statement indicating that they wish to submit the Petition on their 9 || currently-filed briefs. If Petitioner or Respondents wish to file supplemental briefing, they 10 || must also submit as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the 11 ||issues raised in the Petition and make a recommendation regarding the need for an 12 |/evidentiary hearing. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time, and the 13 || 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || DATE: February 5, 2026 Zot Breiner, tage D 73 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28