Miguel Santiago Ramirez v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIGUEL SANTIAGO RAMIREZ Case No.: 25-cv-3257-JES-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER: v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 15 CORPUS; Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, (2) SETTING BRIEFING Enforcement & Removal Operations; 17 SCHEDULE; and TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE Department of Homeland Security; JURISDICTION PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; and DAREN K. MARGOLIN, Director, Executive Office for [ECF Nos. 1, 2] Immigration Review, 23 Respondents.

26 // // // 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Miguel Santiago Ramirez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed the Petition and paid the associated fee on November 21, 2025. Id. On November 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for the Court to order Respondents to show cause as to why the Petition and should not be granted. ECF No. 2. The Court addresses both filings below.

6 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. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D.

19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court).

21 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 Friday, November 28, 2025.

23 The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner.

26 Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m.

27 on Monday, December 1, 2025.

28 // 1 At that point, the matter will be fully briefed. No oral argument will be required, and 2 Court will take it under submission.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 || Dated: November 24, 2025 6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge