Milan M. Milutinovic v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Milan M. Milutinovic, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, declined to dismiss the petition summarily, and ordered the Respondents to file a response while enjoining them from transferring the Petitioner outside the Southern District of California.
| 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 filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must grant IFP status if the petitioner demonstrates inability to pay. The order contains the necessary factual predicate (the attestation) and the legal conclusion. |
Petition not dismissed summarily“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 allows summary dismissal only for vague, conclusory, or frivolous petitions. By finding dismissal 'unwarranted,' the court implicitly found the petition met the threshold for proceeding to a response. This is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation. |
Ordering Respondents to file a response and serve Petitioner“Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 25, 2026... Respondents shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by March 27, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to advance the litigation. It sets reasonable deadlines for the government to respond to the habeas petition. |
Status quo order enjoining transfer of Petitioner“To maintain the status quo, 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 for the proposition that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction or while a petition is pending. This is a common and appropriate measure in habeas cases involving detained individuals to ensure the court retains practical control over the subject of the writ. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly grants IFP status based on the petitioner's attestation. It correctly applies the Kourteva standard to determine that summary dismissal is not warranted, thereby allowing the case to proceed to a response. The status quo order is supported by the cited authority (Doe v. Bondi) and is a standard protective measure in habeas cases involving detained individuals. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural stage of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILAN M. MILUTINOVIC, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1644-CAB-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 AND Respondents. 16 (2) ORDERING RESPONSE 17 18 Petitioner Milan M. Milutinovic, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se1, has 19 filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 20 (“Petition”).] Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he 21 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. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 25, 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 27, 10 2026. 1] 3. Petitioner may file a reply by April 3, 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 18, 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).