Juan Alberto Rafael Jacinto v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center; Todd Blanche, Acting United States Attorney General; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Patrick Divver, ICE San Diego Field Office Director
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detainee and ordered the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The court set a briefing schedule and stayed the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Respondents to Show Cause“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 Wednesday, June 10, 2026.” | agree with court The order follows standard procedure for a habeas petition, requiring the government to respond to the allegations of unlawful detention. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, June 11, 2026.” | agree with court The court established a timeline for the parties to present their arguments, which is within the court's discretion to manage the docket. |
Staying Removal of Petitioner“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 a habeas petition is pending, citing relevant case law and the Supreme Court's decision in A.A.R.P v. Trump. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on appropriate authorities to justify the stay of removal and the briefing schedule. The citations to recent district court orders and the Supreme Court case provide a solid foundation for the court's actions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN ALBERTO RAFAEL JACINTO, Case No.: 26-cv-3416-JES-AHG 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 21 [ECF No. 1] 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Juan Alberto Rafael Jacinto’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 24 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on June 5, 2026. 25 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 Wednesday, June 10, 2026. 28 The 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 Thursday, June 11, 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: June 5, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28