Tesfaye Alemu Gebregiziabher v. Sixto Marrero, Warden of Imperial Regional Adult Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 7 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a rulin
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detained individual. It ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Respondent to show cause why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3, 2026.” | agree with court The order is a standard procedural step in a habeas corpus case to ensure the respondent has an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the court makes a substantive determination. It follows standard practice for § 2241 petitions. |
Setting a briefing schedule for the Petition“Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 6, 2026.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and set deadlines for briefing to ensure the case is resolved efficiently. |
Staying removal of Petitioner from the District 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 court cites authority supporting its power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. The order relies on recent district court cases and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) to support the stay. The reasoning is consistent with the principle that courts must preserve their jurisdiction over pending matters. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine procedural order in a habeas corpus case. It correctly identifies the need to preserve jurisdiction by staying removal, citing relevant authority including a recent Supreme Court case. 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 TESFAYE ALEMU Case No.: 26-cv-2004-JES-MSB GEBREGIZIABHER, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF SIXTO MARRERO, Warden of Imperial 15 HABEAS CORPUS; Regional Adult Detention Facility, 16 Respondent. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 17 SCHEDULE; AND 18 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 20 21 [ECF No. 1] 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Tesfaye Alemu Gebregiziabher’s (“Petitioner”) 24 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on 25 March 30, 2026. ECF No. 1. 26 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 27 be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3, 2026. The 28 Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues 1 ||raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is 2 ||necessary. Respondent SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. 3 || Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. 4 |}on Monday, April 6, 2026. After the petition has been fully briefed, the Court will 5 || determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under submission or if oral argument 6 || will be required. 7 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 8 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 9 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 10 || (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 11 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 12 || the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 13 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 14 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 15 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 16 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 17 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 18 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 19 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 20 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 21 || approval from the court). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March 31, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28