Antonio Alvarado Medina v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Therefore, the Court will order the Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follo
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Antonio Alvarado Medina filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging unlawful detention by ICE and membership in a certified class. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the Government to file a response by February 12, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court denied summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered the Government to respond.“Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, which permits summary dismissal only when allegations are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The court found that summary dismissal was 'unwarranted at this time,' implying the petition met the threshold for proceeding to a response. This is a standard procedural step in habeas corpus proceedings where the initial petition is facially sufficient. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas corpus case. It correctly identifies the standard for summary dismissal and applies it to the facts presented (i.e., that the petition is not facially frivolous). It sets reasonable deadlines for the government's response and the petitioner's reply. There are no legal errors or significant gaps in the reasoning provided for this specific procedural step.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO ALVARADO MEDINA, Case No. 26-cv-00687-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 Petitioner Antonio Alvarado Medina filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner claims that he is being detained by 20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement in violation of the immigration laws and the Fifth 21 Amendment. (Id.) Petitioner also alleges he is a member of the class certified in the 22 Central District’s decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS- 23 BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 24 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 25 at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 26 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 27 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 28 Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: I 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than February 2 ||12, 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 6 || 19, 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 11 || DATED: February 5, 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.