Azat Matkerimov v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 24, 2025) (enjoining the 1 defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs fr
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen and ordered the respondents to file a response. The court also issued a limited injunction prohibiting the removal of 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 9, 2026.” | agree with court The court has inherent authority to manage the docket and require responses to pending petitions. The deadline set is reasonable given the filing date. |
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 cites the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and two district court cases to support the issuance of a limited stay to preserve the status quo and jurisdiction. This is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas cases to prevent mootness. The order is limited in scope and duration, pending further order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural step in a habeas case. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petition and uses the All Writs Act to issue a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction. The cited authorities, while district court decisions, are consistent with established practice in this circuit and nationwide for preserving the status quo in removal cases. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZAT MATKERIMOV, Case No.: 26-cv-1287-BJC-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS AND PROHIBITING 14 WARDEN, Imperial Regional Detention TRANSFER OF PETITIONER Facility, et. al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On February 28, 2026, Petitioner Azat Matkerimov, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, filed a 20 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a 21 review of the petition and motion, this Court deems it appropriate to require Respondents 22 to file a response. Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the 23 status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. 24 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 25 2025) (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent 26 the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the 27 plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 28 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the 1 defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of 2 Connecticut to preserve the court’s jurisdiction). 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 4 l. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 5 ||business March 9, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 6 || orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 7 2. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business March 16, 8 ||2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 9 || that time. 10 3. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 11 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 12 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to 13 || maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at 14 || hand. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: March 2, 2026 17 19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28