Angelo Alexandro Codallo-Cambero v. Pam Bondi, Attorney General; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of DHS; Todd Lyons, Director of ICE; Christopher Larose, Warden of ICE
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and a Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by a detained individual. The court stayed the petitioner's removal from the district, conditionally appointed counsel, and ordered 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 from the District“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 correctly applied the principle that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction and while a petition is pending. The cited authorities, including A.A.R.P v. Trump and district court precedents, support the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction. |
Conditional appointment of counsel“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court found that appointment serves the interests of justice due to the complexity of the issues and that the petitioner is financially eligible. This aligns with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and the Ninth Circuit precedent in Weygandt v. Look. |
Order to Show Cause regarding Petition and TRO“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 29, 2026.” | agree with court The court identified potential grounds for habeas relief and required a response to determine if the petition and TRO should be granted. This is a standard procedural step in habeas cases where the court needs to assess the merits after identifying potential claims. |
Consolidation of TRO with merits determination“the Court intends to consolidate the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2).” | agree with court The court provided clear and unambiguous notice of its intent to consolidate the TRO with the merits determination, which is permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) as supported by Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of Lab. & Indus. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority for the power to preserve jurisdiction and appoint counsel. It provides clear notice for the consolidation of the TRO and merits under Rule 65(a)(2). The stay of removal is a standard protective measure in habeas cases to ensure the court can adjudicate the petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELO ALEXANDRO CODALLO- Case No.: 3:26-cv-2559-JES-AHG CAMBERO, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE PAM BONDI, Attorney General; 15 JURISDICTION; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of 16 DHS; TODD LYONS, Director of ICE; (2) GRANTING THE MOTION TO CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of 17 APPOINT COUNSEL; Otay Mesa Detention Center, 18 Respondents. (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR 20 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 21 ORDER; and 22 (4) SETTING BRIEFING 23 SCHEDULE [ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3] 24 25 26 27 Before the Court is Petitioner Angelo Alexandro Codallo-Cambero’s: (1) Petition 28 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”); (2) Motion for a 1 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”); and (3) Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF Nos. 1- 2 3. 3 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 4 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 5 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 6 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 7 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 8 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 9 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 10 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 11 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 12 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 13 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 14 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 15 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 16 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 17 approval from the court). 18 Based on Petitioner’s filings, the Court has identified multiple potential grounds 19 under which he may be entitled to habeas relief. Considering the complexity and potential 20 validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented in this matter, the 21 Court finds that the appointment of representation serve the interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court finds 23 further, based on the in affidavit he provided the Court, that Petitioner is financially eligible 24 for appointed counsel. See Pet.; see also ECF No. 3. Accordingly, the Court hereby 25 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 26 effective immediately. 27 Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the 28 Petition and TRO should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on | || Thursday, April 29, 2026. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the 2 ||determination of the issues raised in the Petition and TRO and address whether an 3 evidentiary hearing on the Petition and TRO is necessary. Petitioner may file an optional 4 || Traverse in support of the Petition, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 2026. No 5 || oral argument will be held unless otherwise ordered. 6 Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the 7 ||Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 8 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of 9 || Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) 10 giving "clear and unambiguous notice"). In other words, the Court intends to resolve 11 || both the Petition and the TRO. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: April 24, 2026 14 □□□ Sir, 15 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28