Edgar Antonio Barrios Solorzano v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Director of U.S.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Response shall include any documents relevant 9 to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and address w
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis filed by a detained individual. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, stayed the petitioner's removal to preserve jurisdiction, and ordered the respondents to file a response to the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis granted“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner is unemployed and has no money in accounts, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows directly from the facts stated in the order. |
Stay of removal of petitioner ordered to preserve jurisdiction“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 A.A.R.P. v. Trump and other district court orders to support the proposition that federal courts have the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. This is a standard equitable power exercised in habeas cases to ensure the court can actually adjudicate the petition. |
Respondents ordered to show cause and file a response“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 Monday, July 20, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural step in a habeas corpus action where the court has not yet screened the petition for frivolity or jurisdictional defects. Ordering a response is appropriate to allow the government to present its position before the court makes a substantive ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the IFP standard based on the petitioner's financial affidavit. It appropriately exercises the court's equitable power to stay removal to preserve jurisdiction, citing recent Supreme Court authority (A.A.R.P. v. Trump) and consistent district court practice. The procedural order for a response is standard for a pending habeas petition. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these preliminary procedural rulings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDGAR ANTONIO BARRIOS Case No.: 26-cv-3999-JES-VET SOLORZANO, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 15 PAUPERIS; CENTER; SECRETARY OF THE 16 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (2) STAYING REMOVAL OF SECURITY; DIRECTOR OF U.S. 17 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS JURISDICTION; 18 ENFORCEMENT (ICE), 19 Respondents. (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 20 CORPUS; and 21 (4) SETTING BRIEFING 22 SCHEDULE 23 24 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 25 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Edgar Antonio Barrios Solorzano’s (“Petitioner”) 27 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), and Motion 28 to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. 1 Petitioner’s application to proceed IFP reflects that Petitioner is not employed and 2 does not have money in any accounts. ECF No. 2. The Court, accordingly, finds that 3 Petitioner cannot afford the $5 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to 4 Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for 5 Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 6 Pursuant to the Petition’s allegations, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW 7 CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 8 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 20, 2026. The Response shall include any documents relevant 9 to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary 10 hearing on the Petition is necessary. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of 11 the Petition, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 22, 2026. No oral argument will 12 be held unless otherwise ordered. 13 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 14 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 15 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 16 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 17 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 18 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 19 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 20 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 21 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 22 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 23 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 24 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 25 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 26 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 27 approval from the court). 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: July 14, 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