Issenova Aisara v. Sixto Marrero, Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 24, 2025) (enjoining the 1 defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs fro
- 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 respondent 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 respondent to file a response to the petition“Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business March 19, 2026.” | agree with court The court has discretion to manage the docket and require responses in habeas proceedings. The order sets a reasonable deadline and requests pertinent documents, which is standard procedure to facilitate adjudication on the merits. |
Injunction enjoining removal of petitioner from the United States or the District“Respondent, his 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 relies on the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and cites district court cases (E-C-R- v. Noem; Du v. DHS) to support a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. While the order does not explicitly recite the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest), it frames the relief as a 'limited stay' necessary to preserve the status quo for a reasoned decision, which is a recognized use of the All Writs Act in habeas contexts to prevent mootness. The reliance on unpublished district court orders is weak, but the underlying principle of preserving jurisdiction in habeas cases is well-established. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in requiring a response. The injunction is defensible as a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, a common practice in habeas cases involving detained non-citizens to prevent mootness. However, the order relies on unpublished district court orders rather than binding circuit precedent or Supreme Court authority on the standard for such stays (e.g., the 'extraordinary circumstances' or 'clear and convincing evidence' standards often applied in immigration detention contexts). It does not explicitly analyze the traditional preliminary injunction factors, relying instead on the 'status quo' rationale. This makes the reasoning somewhat thin but not legally erroneous given the discretionary nature of All Writs Act stays.
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 ISSENOVA AISARA, Case No.: 26-cv-1432-BJC-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS AND PROHIBITING 14 SIXTO MARRERO, Warden of Imperial TRANSFER OF PETITIONER Regional Detention Facility, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 On March 5, 2026, Petitioner Azat Matkerimov, a citizen of Kazakhstan, 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 Respondent to 22 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. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 5 ||March 19, 2026. Respondent shall include copies of all pertinent documents, orders, and 6 || transcripts relevant to this petition. 7 2. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business March 26, 8 ||2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 9 || that time. 10 3. Respondent, his 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 11, 2026 17 19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28