Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SATURNINO SOSOF MENDOZA, Case No.: 26-cv-3378 JES MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LaROSE, Senior PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center; 15 CORPUS; TODD BLANCHE, Acting United States 16 Attorney General; MARKWAYNE (2) SETTING BRIEFING MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of 17 SCHEDULE; and Homeland Security; PATRICK DIVVER, 18 ICE San Diego Field Office Director, in (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF their official capacities, 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE Respondents. JURISDICTION 20 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Saturnino Sosof Mendoza’s Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). 25 Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 26 be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2026. The Response 27 shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the 28 | Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is necessary. 2 || Respondent SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. Petitioner may file 3 ||an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 11, 2026. 4 || After the petition has been fully briefed, the Court will determine whether it is appropriate 5 ||to take the matter under submission or if oral argument is required. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’’); 16 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 || approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: June 4, 2026 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28