Felix Dopazo-Barroso v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, declined to dismiss the petition, and ordered the respondents to file a response while maintaining the status quo by prohibiting the petitioner's transfer 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 attested to having no means to pay the filing fee, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows directly from the record recited in the order. |
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Not Dismissed“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, finding the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. This is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation to determine if the petition warrants a full response from the government. |
Status Quo Order Issued“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 cited Doe v. Bondi to support its jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while the petition is pending. This is a common and appropriate measure in habeas cases involving detained individuals to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions and appropriately uses its inherent authority to maintain the status quo to prevent mootness. The citations are relevant and the procedural orders are standard for this type of case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELIX DOPAZO-BARROSO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1558-CAB-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL [Doc. No. 2]; AND DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 (2) ORDERING RESPONSE 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland 19 Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se1, has filed 20 a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 21 (“Petition”).] He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests 22 he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. [Doc. No. 2 (“IFP”).] The Court GRANTS 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- 404- 28 | || Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition 2 || without prepayment of the filing fee. 3 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 4 ||this 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 1. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 25, 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 in the Petition. 11 2. Respondents shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by March 26, 12 2026. 13 3. Petitioner may file a reply by April 6, 2026. 14 4. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 15 |}employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 16 |}Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 17 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” 18 5. 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 18, 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).