Leonet Ricardo Gamez Sabogal v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security; David
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — C
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detainee at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. The court ordered the government 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 |
|---|---|
Order 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 June 11, 2026.” | agree with court The order requires the respondent to respond to a habeas petition, which is a standard procedural step in federal habeas litigation to allow the government to address the allegations before the court makes a substantive determination. |
Stay of Removal“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 while a habeas petition is pending. This is a recognized equitable power of federal courts in habeas cases to ensure the court can actually adjudicate the petition. |
Briefing Schedule“Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition, no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2026.” | agree with court Setting a schedule for a traverse is a standard case management decision to allow the petitioner to respond to the government's show cause response. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the need to preserve jurisdiction in a habeas case where the petitioner is in custody. It cites recent district court orders and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) to support the stay of removal. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities, which align with the general principle that courts have equitable power to preserve their jurisdiction over habeas petitions.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEONET RICARDO GAMEZ Case No.: 3:26-cv-3418-JES-BJW SABOGAL, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney 15 JURISDICTION; General of the United States, Department 16 of Justice; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO Secretary of Homeland Security; DAVID 17 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS J. VENTURELLA, Senior Official CORPUS; and 18 Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs 19 (3) SETTING BRIEFING Enforcement; PATRICK DIVVER, Field SCHEDULE 20 Office Director of the San Diego Immigration and Customs Enforcement 21 Office; JORGE VELARDE, Assistant [ECF No. 1] 22 Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Otay Mesa 23 Detention Center; CHRISTOPHER J. 24 LAROSE; Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 25 Respondents. 26 27 28 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Leonet Ricardo Gamez Sabogal’s Petition for Writ of 2 Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1. 3 Pursuant to the Petition’s allegations, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW 4 CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5 5:00 p.m. on June 11, 2026. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the 6 determination of the issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary 7 hearing on the Petition is necessary. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of 8 the Petition, no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2026. No oral argument will be held unless 9 otherwise ordered. 10 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 11 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 12 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 13 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 14 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 15 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 16 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 17 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 18 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 19 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 20 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 21 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 22 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 23 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 24 approval from the court). 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: June 5, 2026 3 Str J. 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28