Allan Edgar Miller-Leon v. Christopher Larose; Kristi Noem; Todd Lyons; Patrick Divver; Sirce Owen; and Pamela Bondi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detainee and ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The court set a briefing schedule and stayed the petitioner's removal from the United States to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Respondents to Show Cause“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response by February 12, 2026.” | agree with court The court correctly initiates the habeas corpus process by requiring the custodian to respond to the petition, which is the standard procedural mechanism for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by February 13, 2026.” | agree with court The court established a reasonable timeline for the parties to present their arguments, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the government's position. |
Staying Removal of Petitioner“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that federal courts have the inherent power to issue injunctive relief to preserve their jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm while a habeas petition is pending. The cited authorities support the necessity of maintaining the status quo to ensure the court can effectively adjudicate the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly initiates the habeas corpus proceedings by ordering a response and sets a clear briefing schedule. The stay of removal is supported by recent district court precedents and a Supreme Court case cited for the proposition that courts have the power to preserve jurisdiction through injunctive relief. The reasoning directly addresses the need to maintain the status quo to ensure the court can adjudicate the petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLAN EDGAR MILLER-LEON, Case No.: 26-cv-780-JES-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; KRISTI PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS NOEM; TODD LYONS; PATRICK 15 CORPUS; DIVVER; SIRCE OWEN; and PAMELA 16 BONDI, (2) SETTING BRIEFING 17 Respondents. SCHEDULE; AND 18 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 20 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Allan Edgar Miller-Leon’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Respondents are hereby 24 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a 25 written Response by February 12, 2026. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in 26 support of the Petition by February 13, 2026. 27 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 28 not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders | || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 2 ||Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 3 || determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 4 || pending resolution from the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 5 || ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 6 ||restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 7 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 8 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 9 || further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 10 || that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 11 || the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 12 CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 13 Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: February 9, 2026 16 Sa— 17 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28