Nounagnon Thomas Ayidedji v. Jeremy Casey, Warden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court granted the pro se immigration detainee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. It ordered the respondent to file a response, set briefing deadlines, and enjoining the transfer of the petitioner outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner attests to having no means to pay the fee, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows directly from the stated facts. |
Summary dismissal of habeas petition denied“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, finding the petition was not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. While the order does not detail the specific allegations, the procedural determination to allow the case to proceed to a response is a standard initial screening step for habeas petitions that is consistent with the cited authority. |
Order to respond and briefing schedule set“Respondent shall file a response to the Petition by March 24, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to facilitate the adjudication of the habeas petition. It is consistent with local rules and general federal practice for habeas cases. |
Status quo injunction (no transfer) ordered“Respondent, his officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondent SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” | agree with court The court relied on Doe v. Bondi to justify preserving the status quo while jurisdiction is determined. This is a common and generally accepted practice in habeas cases to prevent mootness or loss of jurisdiction due to transfer. The citation supports the proposition that courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the IFP standard, uses the appropriate test for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, and cites a recent district court case to support the status quo injunction. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural steps taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOUNAGNON THOMAS AYIDEDJI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1624-CAB-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 15 Respondent. AND 16 (2) ORDERING RESPONSE 17 18 Petitioner Nounagnon Thomas Ayidedji, an immigration detainee proceeding pro 19 se1, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. 20 No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which 21 he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. [Doc. No. 2.] The Court GRANTS 22 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition 23 without prepayment of the filing fee. 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 Additionally, having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is 2 || unwarranted at this tine. Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) 3 ||(“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 4 ||conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”’). 5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 1. Respondent shall file a response to the Petition by March 24, 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. Respondent shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by March 26, 10 2026. 1] 3. Petitioner may file a reply by April 2, 2026. 12 4. To maintain the status quo, Respondent, his officers, agents, servants, 13 |;}employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 14 || Respondent SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California 15 || 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 17, 2026 (GB 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 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] 28 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases).