Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Justino RIOS DOMINGUEZ, Case No.: 26cv1021-LL-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 13 v. TO PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 Christopher J. LAROSE et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Justino Rios Dominuez is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department 19 of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On February 18, 2026, he 20 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). 21 Petitioner entered the United States in or about 2002. Pet. ¶ 13. On January 2, 2026, 22 Petitioner was apprehended by ICE. Id. ¶ 7. He is currently detained at the Otay Mesa 23 Detention Facility. Id. ¶ 12. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents 24 to, inter alia, hold a bond hearing pursuant to Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25- 25 CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 3289861, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 26 2025). Id. ¶¶ 2, 6. 27 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 28 at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary 1 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] 2 conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)). 3 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All 4 Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a 5 reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is 6 removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 7 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their 8 authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration 9 matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). 10 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 11 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 12 not be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 26, 2026. The Return shall 13 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and 14 shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondents shall 15 serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 16 2. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before March 3, 17 2026. 18 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 19 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 20 notified otherwise. 21 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 22 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 23 Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 24 to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 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 1 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 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28