Osaretin Osazee Jerry v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OSARETIN OSAZEE JERRY Case No.: 25-cv-3612-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; CENTER, Respondent. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 HABEAS CORPUS; (2) SETTING BRIEFING 19 SCHEDULE; AND (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 21 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 23 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Osaretin Osazee Jerry’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner also filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS || Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for a Writ ||of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

3 Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 22, 2025. Petitioner MAY || FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by January 5, 2026.

6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall ||not be removed from the United States or 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. 9 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) (finding || that 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. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the || Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court).

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 || Dated: December 17, 2025 23 “ur Sin, 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge