Jiaxing XIE v. Christopher J. LAROSE, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee alleging a due process violation regarding prolonged detention. The court denied summary dismissal, ordered the government to show cause, and issued a limited stay enjoining the removal of the petitioner from the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Hendricks v. Vasquez, which requires that allegations be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous for summary dismissal. The order does not explicitly state why the petition meets this threshold, but the decision to proceed to a Return is a standard procedural step in habeas cases where the petition is facially valid. The court's reliance on the 9th Circuit precedent is appropriate for the district. |
Ordering Respondents to Show Cause (File a Return)“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before March 13, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, requiring the custodian to respond to a habeas petition. It follows logically from the denial of summary dismissal. |
Issuance of a limited stay enjoining removal of 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.” | agree with court The court relied on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve jurisdiction. The order cites E-C-R- v. Noem (D. Or. 2025) to support the proposition that courts use the All Writs Act to maintain jurisdiction over immigration matters. While the All Writs Act is a valid basis for such orders, the court's reliance on a single unpublished district court opinion from another district (D. Or.) rather than binding 9th Circuit precedent or Supreme Court authority (such as *Neely v. Jenkins* or *Munaf v. Geren* regarding jurisdiction and stays) is a gap. However, the practice is common and the result is defensible to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the 9th Circuit standard for summary dismissal. However, the justification for the stay relies on an unpublished district court opinion from another district (D. Or.) rather than binding appellate precedent or well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence on the All Writs Act and jurisdictional stays in immigration cases. While the result is common and defensible, the citation is weak.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incomplete unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jiaxing XIE, Case No.: 26cv1421-LL-BLM 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 Jiaxing is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland 19 Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On March 5, 2026, he filed a Petition 20 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner entered 21 the United States without inspection on January 8, 2025. Pet. ¶ 16. Upon arrival, Petitioner 22 informed the border patrol that he feared returning to China. Id. He was ultimately 23 transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. On February 20, 2025, an immigration 24 judge (“IJ”) found him to be credible and made a positive determination of credible fear of 25 persecution in China. Id. ¶ 17. On November 10, 2025, the IJ granted DHS’s motion to 26 pretermit, denied all forms of relief, and ordered Petitioner be removed to China. Id. ¶ 19. 27 Petitioner timely filed his appeal on November 26, 2025. Id. Petitioner alleges that his 28 prolonged detention violated his due process right under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 1 (2001). Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia, 2 immediately release him from custody. Id. at 12. 3 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 4 at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary 5 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] 6 conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)). 7 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All 8 Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a 9 reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is 10 removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 11 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their 12 authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration 13 matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 15 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 16 not be granted by filing a written Return on or before March 13, 2026. The Return shall 17 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and 18 shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondents shall 19 serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 20 2. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before March 21 18, 2026. 22 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 23 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 24 notified otherwise. 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 l 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 2 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 3 Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 4 ||to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 5 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 6 || No. 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 5, 2026 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28