Jose Leonardo Munoz Diaz v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, 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 filed by an immigration detainee seeking release or a bond hearing. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the respondents to file a response, while enjoining them from transferring the petitioner outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the habeas petition“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, which permits summary dismissal only for vague, conclusory, incredible, or frivolous petitions. The order does not recite specific facts from the petition that would make it frivolous, but it implies the petition contains sufficient allegations to proceed. This is a standard procedural determination in habeas cases. |
Ordering respondents to file a response and serve petitioner“Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 20, 2026. ... Respondents shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by March 23, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to allow the government to answer the habeas petition, consistent with federal habeas practice. |
Injunction against transferring petitioner outside the Southern District of California“To maintain the status quo, 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 cites Doe v. Bondi to support its jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction. This is a common practice in immigration habeas cases to prevent mootness through transfer. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas case. It correctly applies the Kourteva standard to decline summary dismissal and uses Doe v. Bondi to support the status quo injunction. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order at this stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LEONARDO MUNOZ DIAZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1491-CAB-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO RESPOND 13 v. 14 WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Jose Leonardo Munoz Diaz (“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 Petitioner entered the United States on May 13, 2024 without inspection. [Id. at 1.] He 20 claims that on February 11, 2026, he was unlawfully stopped and detained by immigration 21 authorities in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Immigration and 22 Nationality Act. [Id. at 1–2.] He seeks immediate release from detention, or at minimum, 23 an individualized bond hearing. [Id. at 15.] 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: 877-404- 28 1 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 2 ||this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 3 || dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 4 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”’). 5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 l. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 20, 2026. The 7 ||response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents 8 ||relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 9 2. Respondents shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by March 23, 10 2026. 11 3. Petitioner may file a reply by March 27, 2026. 12 4. 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.” 16 5. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 17 || Office with a copy of the Petition and this Order. 18 It is SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: March 12, 2026 (Kyge— 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 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).