1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25-cv-2868-JES-AGH FILADELFO RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PATRICK DIVVER, San Diego Field 15 HABEAS CORPUS; Office Director, Enforcement and

16 Removal Operations, United States (2) SETTING A BRIEFING Immigration and Customs Enforcement 17 SCHEDULE AND MOTION (ICE); CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, HEARING; and 18 Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention

Center; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of 19 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF Homeland Security; UNITED STATES PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND JURISDICTION SECURITY (DHS); PAMELA BONDI, 21 Attorney General of the United States; [ECF NO. 1, 2] 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR); 23 DAREN K. MARGOLIS Director EOIR; 24 in their official capacities 25 Respondents. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Filadelfo Rodriguez-Sanchez’s Petition for Writ of 2 Habeas Corpus pursuant to

(ECF No. 1) and Motion for Temporary 3 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2). Petitioner filed the Petition and 4 Motion and paid the required filing fee on October 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 5 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 6 not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 7 otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB,

at *2 (S.D. 8 Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 9 determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 10 pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 11 ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 12 restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 13 agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 14 with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 15 further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump,

(2025) (finding 16 that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 17 the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 18 CV-01398,

, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 19 Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 20 The Court sets forth the following: 21 1. Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the 22 Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response no later than 5:00 23 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2025. 24 2. Petitioner SHALL SERVE on Respondents copies of both the Petition and 25 this Order as soon as practicable and SHALL FILE proof of such service no 26 later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2025. 27 3. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later 28 than 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2025. 1 4. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to Show Cause Hearing for Friday, October 2 31, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 24, 2025

6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23