Luis Alberto Corado-Serrano v. Pamela Bondi, 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 an individual detained by ICE. The court ordered the government to respond to the petition, denied the TRO motion as moot, and issued an order preventing the petitioner's transfer outside the district to maintain the status quo.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to Respond“Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 16, 2026.” | agree with court The court determined that summary dismissal was unwarranted because the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous, thus requiring the respondent to answer the petition. |
Denial of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as Moot“Petitioner’s motion for TRO, [Doc. No. 2], is DENIED as moot because the relief it requests is preventing transfer or deportation while the Petition is adjudicated.” | agree with court The court denied the TRO as moot because it issued its own order (Paragraph 3) prohibiting the transfer of the petitioner, thereby granting the specific relief requested in the TRO motion through the main order. |
Order to Maintain Status Quo (Prohibition on 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 exercised its inherent authority to preserve the status quo while the habeas petition is pending, citing Doe v. Bondi to support the jurisdiction to issue such an order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and appropriately uses the court's inherent power to maintain the status quo to prevent removal from the district while the petition is adjudicated. The denial of the TRO as moot is procedurally sound given that the court granted the requested relief via the status quo order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS ALBERTO CORADO-SERRANO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1338-CAB-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) TO RESPOND [Doc. No. 1]; and 14 PAMELA BONDI, et al., (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 15 Respondents. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT [Doc. No. 2] 16 17 Petitioner Luis Alberto Corado-Serrano (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,1 filed a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], 19 and a motion for temporary restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims that 20 he has been unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since 21 March 15, 2025. [Petition at 2.] Petitioner was ordered removed to Guatemala on 22 December 10, 2025, but has an appeal of that decision pending with the Board of 23 24 25 26 1 Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego to see if a Federal Defender 27 can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877- 28 1 ||Immigration Appeals. [/d.] Petitioner also seeks to enjoin ICE from transferring him out 2 || of this jurisdiction. [TRO at 3.] 3 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 4 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.’’). 7 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 8 l. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 16, 2026. The 9 ||response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents 10 relevant to the determination of the issues raised. 11 2. Petitioner may file a reply by March 25, 2026. 12 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 13 |;}employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 14 |}Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 15 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.?, Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion 16 || for TRO, [Doc. No. 2], is DENIED as moot because the relief it requests is preventing 17 transfer or deportation while the Petition is adjudicated. 18 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 19 || Office with a copy of the Petition and this Order. 20 It is SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: March 9, 2026 ( Oe — 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 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).