1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JORGE ESTUARDO MARIN, Case No. 25-cv-05990-EKL

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 1 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Petitioner is a 35-year-old citizen of Guatemala who immigrated to the United States in 14 1989 when he was two months old. See Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶¶ 28-29, ECF No. 1 (the 15 “Petition”). On or about August 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (the “DHS”) 16 arrested Petitioner pursuant to

.

. The next day, Petitioner was released on 17 bond and served a notice to appear before an immigration judge on an unspecified date.

. 18 On or about August 22, 2013, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner to be removed from the 19 United States through an in absentia order of removal pursuant to

(a) for his 20 failure to appear at his hearing.

. Petitioner alleges that he never received notice of this 21 hearing and did not receive a copy of the order of removal at the address he provided upon his 22 release from detention.

23 On July 9, 2025, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 24 transferred to the Golden State Annex facility in McFarland, California.

. That 25 same day, Petitioner’s counsel “attempted to contact” Petitioner but “the earliest appointment was 26 for July 15, 2025.”

. On July 10, Petitioner’s counsel notified the DHS that Petitioner 27 would file a motion to reopen and rescind the 2013 order of removal for lack of notice.

. 1 had been filed.

. That same day, prior to his removal, Petitioner also directly informed 2 DHS of the motion to reopen.

. On July 12, Petitioner was transferred to an unknown 3 location for removal.

. On July 14, Petitioner informed his fiancée that he had been 4 deported to Guatemala.1

. 5 Petitioner claims that his removal violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights and 6 statutory provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

. Petitioner’s filing of 7 the motion to reopen his removal order automatically stayed his removal “pending disposition of 8 the motion by the immigration judge.”

(b)(4)(ii). Thus, Petitioner claims that 9 his removal violated the automatic stay and deprived him of his right to a fair and meaningful 10 opportunity to be heard.

. 11 The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person claiming to be 12 “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 13 § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award 14 the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be 15 granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled 16 thereto.”

; see also Wright v. Dickson,

(9th Cir. 1964) 17 (“Unless a petition for habeas corpus reveals on its face that as a matter of law the petitioner is not 18 entitled to the writ, the writ or an order to show cause must issue.” (citing

)). 19 Here, Petitioner alleges that he was removed without due process in violation of an order staying 20 his removal and without sufficient access to his legal counsel. These allegations are sufficient to 21 require an answer from Respondents. 22 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1. The Petitioner shall serve a copy of the Petition and this Order upon Respondents and 24 their counsel such that they receive actual notice as soon as practicable. Petitioner 25 shall file proof of service within one day of completing service. 26 2. Within three days after Respondents are served with the Petition and this Order, 27 1 Respondents shall file an answer responding to the allegations of the Petition. The 2 response shall show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. 3 Respondents must file with the answer a copy of all documents that are relevant to a 4 determination of the issues presented by the petition. 5 3. After receiving the answer, the Court will set a hearing. 6 4. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse within 7 two days after being served with the answer. 8 5. The parties may stipulate to amend these deadlines by filing a proposed order for the 9 Court’s consideration. 10 IT ISSO ORDERED. 11 Dated: July 17, 2025 a 12

13 Gnd 4 umi K. Lee United States District Judge Z 1s 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28