Enrique Bernardo Correa Paiva v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a detained non-citizen, as well as a motion to add a mailing address. The court ordered respondents to file a response, consolidated the TRO motion with the merits, denied the motion to add a mailing address, and issued a status quo order prohibiting the transfer of the petitioner outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to Petition and TRO“Therefore, the Court will order a response to the Petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, finding the allegations not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. Consolidating the TRO with the merits under Rule 65(a)(2) is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure notice and an opportunity to be heard, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Denial of Motion to Add Additional Mailing Address“Because the Court’s CM/ECF system does not permit the addition of multiple mailing addresses for a pro se litigant, the request is DENIED.” | agree with court The denial is based on a technical limitation of the court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF) regarding pro se litigants. While potentially inconvenient, the court's reliance on system constraints is a valid administrative reason for denial at this stage. |
Status Quo Order (No Transfer)“Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 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 cited Doe v. Bondi to support its jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while the petition is pending. This is a standard equitable power exercised to ensure the court can effectively adjudicate the habeas petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, cites appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority regarding the preference for notice in TRO proceedings, and properly utilizes Rule 65(a)(2) to manage the TRO motion. The status quo order is supported by cited district court authority and standard equitable principles.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE BERNARDO CORREA Case No.: 3:26-cv-01246-CAB-DDL PAIVA, 12 (1) ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE Petitioner, 13 TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION 14 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 ORDER; Respondents. 16 [Docs. No. 1, 2] 17 (2) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 18 ADD ADDITIONAL MAILING 19 ADDRESS 20 [Doc. No. 3] 21 22 23 Petitioner Enrique Bernardo Correa Paiva (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of 24 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], and a motion for 25 temporary restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner alleges he was detained by 26 immigration authorities on August 25, 2025 at a Customs and Border Protection checkpoint 27 despite having a pending asylum application. [TRO at 1.] Petitioner claims that he has 28 been detained since then without a bond hearing in violation of the Due Process Clause of 1 the Fifth Amendment. [Petition at 6.] He seeks immediate release from custody, or at 2 minimum, a bond hearing. [Id. at 7.] 3 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 4 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 5 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 6 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order a 7 response to the Petition. 8 Turning to the TRO, while temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex 9 parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is 10 for the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an 11 opposition. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 12 Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary 13 restraining orders and their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. 14 McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). The Court will order a response and 15 consolidate a decision on the motion for TRO with a determination on the merits under 16 Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t 17 of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court must invoke Rule 18 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous notice”). 19 Petitioner also moves to add an additional mailing address to the docket. [Doc. No. 20 3.] Because the Court’s CM/ECF system does not permit the addition of multiple mailing 21 addresses for a pro se litigant, the request is DENIED. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 l. Respondents shall file a response by March 12, 2026. The response must 3 ||address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any 4 ||documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised. Respondents shall serve a 5 || copy of the response on Petitioner by March 13, 2026. 6 2. Petitioner may file a reply by March 20, 2026. 7 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 8 |}employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 9 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 10 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! 11 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 12 || Office with a copy of the Petition, the motion for TRO, and this order. 13 SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: March 5, 2026 (Kyge— 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 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).