Yafeng Han v. John Rathman, Warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Yafeng Han, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court ordered respondents to file a response, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined respondents from removing the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondents to file a response to the petition“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business March 6, 2026.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and require a response to a pending petition, which is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation. |
Order enjoining respondents from removing petitioner from the United States or the District“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 to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court relied on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cited district court precedents (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) to support a limited stay to preserve the status quo and jurisdiction. This is a recognized use of the All Writs Act to prevent mootness or loss of jurisdiction while a petition is pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a preliminary procedural order. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petition and uses the All Writs Act to issue a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. The citations to recent district court cases support the specific application of the All Writs Act in immigration/habeas contexts to prevent removal during pendency. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary order requiring a response and a limited stay.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YAFENG HAN, Case No.: 26-cv-1239-BJC-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS AND PROHIBITING 14 JOHN RATHMAN, Warden of the TRANSFER OF PETITIONER Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et. 15 al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On February 26, 2026, Petitioner Yafeng Han, a citizen of China, filed a Petition for 20 a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary 21 restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2. After a review of the petition and motion, this Court 22 deems it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response. Additionally, the Court 23 finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to provide a 24 reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 25 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 26 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff 27 while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief); Du v. 28 United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at 1 ||*2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from 2 ||removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve the court’s 3 ||jurisdiction). 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 6 business March 6, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 7 || orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 8 2. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business March 13, 9 ||2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 10 || that time. 11 3. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 12 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 13 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to 14 || maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at 15 || hand. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: February 27, 2026 18 20 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28