Lina Vanessa Chavarro Velez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Troy Miller, Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detainee at Otay Mesa Detention Center. The court ordered a stay of the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction and set a briefing schedule for the respondents to show cause why the petition and TRO should not be granted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of removal of Petitioner to preserve jurisdiction“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The decision to stay removal to preserve jurisdiction is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas corpus cases involving detainees to ensure the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the person. The cited authorities support the court's power to issue such injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction. |
Order to Show Cause and Setting of Briefing Schedule“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO should not be granted by FILING a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 2026.” | agree with court Setting a briefing schedule and ordering a response is within the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and adjudicate pending motions. The specific dates and requirements are procedural directives. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the need to preserve jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case involving a detainee. It cites relevant district court precedents and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) to support the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction. The procedural steps for briefing are standard. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LINA VANESSA CHAVARRO VELEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01889-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; PETITIONER TO PRESERVE Field Office Director, San Diego Field 15 JURISDICTION; Office, United States Immigration and 16 Customs Enforcement; TROY MILLER, (2) SETTING BRIEFING Acting Director, United States 17 SCHEDULE; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
18 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO Security; PAM BONDI, United States 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Attorney General, CORPUS AND MOTION FOR 20 Respondents. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 21 ORDER 22 [ECF No. 1] 23 24 Before the Court is Petitioner Lina Vanessa Chavarro Velez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 25 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and Motion for 26 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. 27 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 28 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. | || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 2 || (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 3 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 4 || the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 5 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 6 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 7 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 8 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 9 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 10 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 11 the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 12 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 13 || approval from the court). 14 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 15 should not be granted by FILING a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 16 2026. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 17 || issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition and 18 || TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. 19 || Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 20 on Monday, April 6, 2026. Thereafter, the Court will take the matter under 21 |}submission, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise ordered. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: March 27, 2026 24 Soar Str, 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28