1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA EUGENIA ATENCIO MACHADO, Case No.: 25-cv-3277-JES-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 DIRECTOR OF THE OTAY MESA PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 Respondents. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 16 SCHEDULE; and 17 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 18 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 19 JURISDICTION

20 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Maria Eugenia Atencio Machado’s (“Petitioner”) 23 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. On November 24 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which 25 she attests that she has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee on November 19, 2025. ECF 26 No. 2. The Court addresses both filings below. 27 The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk 28 shall FILE the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 1 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 2 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 3 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB,

at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 4 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 5 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 6 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 7 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 8 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 9 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 10 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 11 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump,

(2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 12 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 13 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398,

, at *3 (W.D. 14 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 15 approval from the court). 16 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 17 be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025. 18 The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues 19 raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is 20 necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. 21 Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. 22 on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. 23 At that point, the matter will be fully briefed. No oral argument will be required, and 24 the Court will take it under submission. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: November 25, 2025

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