1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARFARAZ MOHAMMED, No. 1:25-cv-01761-TLN-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 RON MURRAY et. al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding with retained counsel, 18 brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

. 19 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of 20 the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be 21 entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, 22 Respondents will be directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an 23 answer/return within 14 days from the date of this order. See

. Petitioner may 24 file a reply/traverse to the answer/return within 7 days after being served a copy of it. 25 / / / 26 / / /

27 1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241 28 petitions. 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Respondents are directed to file an answer/return within 14 days from the 3 date of this order. If an answer/return is filed, respondent shall include with the 4 answer/returmn any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the 5 determination of the issues presented in the application. 6 2. Petitioner’s reply/traverse, if any, is due within 7 days after being served a 7 copy of Respondents’ answer/return. 8 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy 9 of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

10 on the United States Attorney. 11 4. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 12 petition, Respondents shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center 13 outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the court. See

1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal courts to 15 “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 16 jurisdictions....”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co.,

(1966) 17 (emphasizing that federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s 18 Jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s 19 action”). 20 21 = Dated: December 9, 2025 Co 3 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28