Rafael Montepeque Rodriguez v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a detainee in the Southern District of California and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, declined to dismiss the petition, and ordered the respondents to file a response while enjoining the transfer of the petitioner outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The order states that the petitioner attested he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must grant IFP status if the petitioner is unable to pay fees. The recitation of the attestation is sufficient to support the grant. |
Petition Not Dismissed“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases, citing Kourteva v. INS, which requires allegations to be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The court found the petition did not meet this threshold. This is a standard procedural determination in habeas litigation. |
Order to Respond and Stay of Transfer“Respondents shall file a response by March 9, 2026... Respondents... SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” | agree with court The court ordered a response to maintain the status quo and preserve jurisdiction. It cited Doe v. Bondi to support the jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while the petition is pending. This is a standard protective order in habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and properly grants IFP status based on the petitioner's attestation. The stay of transfer is a standard protective measure to preserve the court's jurisdiction and prevent mootness, supported by the cited authority. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these procedural determinations.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL MONTEPEQUE RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-1097-CAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 2]; 15 Respondents. AND 16 (2) TO RESPOND. 17 18 Petitioner Rafael Montepeque Rodriguez has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] In response to the Court’s 20 Order to Show Cause regarding Petitioner’s detention location, Respondents confirmed 21 that he is currently housed in the Imperial Regional Detention Center in the Southern 22 District of California. [Doc. No. 5.] The Court is thus satisfied of its jurisdiction over the 23 Petition. 24 Petitioner, through counsel, has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in 25 which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. [Doc. No. 2.] The Court 26 GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the 27 Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 28 1 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 2 ||this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 3 || dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 4 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”’). 5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 l. Respondents shall file a response by March 9, 2026. The response must 7 |;address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the 8 || determination of the issues raised. 9 2. Petitioner may file a reply by March 12, 2026. 10 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 11 ||}employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 12 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 13 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! 14 The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office 15 || with a copy of the Petition and this order. 16 It is SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: March 2, 2026 19 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 3g ||subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases).