1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANJAL GUATAM, Case No.: 25-cv-3600-JES-DEB

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 CORRECTIONAL CORP OF AMERICA PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and OTAY MESA IMMIGRATION 15 COURT, (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 Respondents. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 HABEAS CORPUS;

18 (2) SETTING BRIEFING 19 SCHEDULE; AND

20 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 21 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 22

23 [ECF Nos. 1, 2]

24 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Anjal Guatam’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 26 Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner also 27 filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests he has no 28 means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 1 || Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for a Writ 2 ||of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 3 Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition 4 should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 24, 2025. Petitioner MAY 5 || 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 7 ||not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 8 || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB,

at *2 (S.D. 9 June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 10 || determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 11 || pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 12 ||ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 13 || restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 14 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 15 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 16 || further order of this Court’); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump,

(2025) (finding 17 || that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 18 || the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 19 |] CV-01398,

, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 20 || Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 19, 2025 23 “ur Sin, 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28