Zhenwei Lu v. Patrick Divver; Kristi Noem; Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi; Executive Office of Immigration Review; and Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by an immigration detainee. It ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule, and stayed the petitioner's removal 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 agree with court |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by February 13, 2026.” | agree with court agree with court |
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 agree with court |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petition and cites appropriate authority, including a recent Supreme Court decision, to support the issuance of a stay to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZHENWEI LU, Case No.: 26-cv-781-JES-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 PATRICK DIVVER; KRISTI NOEM; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 CORPUS; SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI;
16 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF (2) SETTING BRIEFING IMMIGRATION REVIEW: and 17 SCHEDULE; AND WARDEN OF OTAY MESA 18 DETENTION CENTER, (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 19 Respondents. PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 20 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Zhenwei Lu’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 23 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