— gno.law

District Court, S.D. California · 3:26-cv-01500 · 2026-03-11 · Unknown

Yuqin Shi v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:38Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Chinese citizen detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. The court ordered the respondent to file a response, set a deadline for the petitioner's traverse, and issued a limited injunction prohibiting the petitioner's removal 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 habeas petition “Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business March 19, 2026.”	agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure the respondent has an opportunity to respond to the habeas petition, which is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation.
Order enjoining respondent from removing 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 relied on the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and cited district court precedents (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) to justify a limited stay to preserve the status quo and maintain jurisdiction. This is a recognized use of the All Writs Act in immigration and detention contexts to prevent mootness.

What the court decided

The model

Order requiring respondent to file a response to the habeas petition

“Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business March 19, 2026.”

agree with court
The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure the respondent has an opportunity to respond to the habeas petition, which is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation.

Order enjoining respondent from removing 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 relied on the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and cited district court precedents (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) to justify a limited stay to preserve the status quo and maintain jurisdiction. This is a recognized use of the All Writs Act in immigration and detention contexts to prevent mootness.

The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural and protective order 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, citing analogous district court decisions. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary protective order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YUQIN SHI, Case No.: 26-cv-1500-BJC-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS AND PROHIBITING 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of TRANSFER OF PETITIONER Otay Mesa Detention Center, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 On March 10, 2026, Petitioner Yuqin Shi, a citizen of China, filed a Petition for a 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the 21 petition and motion, this Court deems it appropriate to require Respondent to file a 22 response. Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status 23 quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. See E- 24 C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) 25 (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, 26 detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s 27 motion for injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV- 28 644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, 1 ||}under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to 2 || 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. Respondents 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