Yajaira De Los Angeles Vega Rugama v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — After the petition has been fully 5 || briefed, the Court will determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under 6 ||submission or if
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detained petitioner. The court ordered respondents to show cause why the petition and TRO 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 Respondents to Show Cause“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 Wednesday, June 10, 2026.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure the petitioner's rights are heard. Ordering a response to a habeas petition is a standard procedural step to allow the government to defend its detention. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition and TRO no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2026.” | agree with court The court is setting a reasonable schedule for the parties to brief the issues raised in the habeas petition and TRO motion. |
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 is issuing a protective order to maintain its jurisdiction over the habeas petition. This is a standard practice in immigration habeas cases to prevent the petitioner from being removed from the court's jurisdiction before the petition can be adjudicated. The court cites A.A.R.P. v. Trump and other cases to support its power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas corpus case. It correctly orders the government to respond to the petition, sets a briefing schedule, and issues a protective order to preserve the court's jurisdiction. The court cites appropriate authorities to support its actions. The reasoning is sound and follows standard practice in this area of law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YAJAIRA DE LOS ANGELES VEGA Case No.: 26-cv-3424-JES-MMP RUGAMA, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of 15 CORPUS AND TRO; the Department of Homeland Security, 16 PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, (2) SETTING BRIEFING TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, 17 SCHEDULE; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 18 JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF Director, San Diego Field Office, 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden at JURISDICTION 20 Otay Mesa Detention Center, 21 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Yajaira De Los Angeles Vega Rugama’s (“Petitioner”) 24 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) and motion 25 for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), filed on June 5, 2026. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 26 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 27 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 28 10, 2026. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of | || the issues raised in the Petition and TRO and address whether an evidentiary hearing on 2 Petition and TRO is necessary. Respondent SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response 3 ||on the Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition and 4 || TRO no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2026. After the petition has been fully 5 || briefed, the Court will determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under 6 ||submission or if oral argument 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