Yongjin Li v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Respondents are
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Yongjin Li, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release or an individualized bond hearing. The court ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the removal of the petitioner from the district to preserve the status quo.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to Show Cause and Briefing Schedule“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 24, 2026 at 4:30 p.m.” | agree with court The court correctly initiates the habeas corpus proceeding by requiring the custodian to respond to the petition, which is the standard procedural step under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. The specific deadlines set are within the court's discretion to manage the docket. |
Injunction Against Removal (Status Quo Order)“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.” | agree with court The court relies on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve its jurisdiction over the habeas petition. This is a recognized and appropriate use of the All Writs Act to prevent the court from being deprived of jurisdiction over the person or property in its custody. The citation to E-C-R- v. Noem supports this proposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order initiating a habeas corpus case. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petition and the All Writs Act as the basis for the status quo order. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a preliminary order. It does not address the merits of the habeas petition, which is appropriate at this stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 YONGJIN LI, Case No.: 26cv1001-LL-JLB 15 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 16 v. TO PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 17 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, SENIOR WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 18 CENTER, ET AL., 19 Respondents. 20 21 Petitioner Yongjin Li is currently detained in the custody of the U.S. Department of 22 Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On February 17, 2026, he 23 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). 24 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to release him from custody 25 or in the alternative order an individualized bond hearing. The Court finds it necessary to 26 order a limited stay pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status 27 quo until the Court can provide a reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential 28 1 jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is removed from this district. See E-C-R- v. Noem, 2 No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts 3 around the country exercise their authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their 4 jurisdiction over pending immigration matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting 5 cases)). 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 7 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not 8 be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 24, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The 9 Return shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the 10 Petition. Respondents shall serve a copy of the Return upon Petitioner concurrently with 11 the filing. 12 2. Petitioner may, but is not required, to reply to the Response in Opposition to 13 the Petition by filing a Traverse on or before March 2, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. 14 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 15 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 16 notified otherwise. 17 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 18 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 19 Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 20 to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 28 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 2 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: February 18, 2026 NO 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28