1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INDERJEET SINGH, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3671-JES-BLM

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING EMERGENCY 14 PATRICK DIVVER; UNITED STATES MOTION TO ENJOIN TRANSFER; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY; RYAN HICKS; TODD M. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 LYONS; KRISTI NOEM; PAM BONDI; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF JEREMY CASEY; ALL PERSONS 17 HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION HAVING CUSTODY OF THE FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 18 PETITIONER, ORDER; 19 Respondents. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 20 SCHEDULE; AND 21 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 22 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 23 JURISDICTION

24 [ECF No. 1, 4] 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Inderjeet Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 26 to

. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Temporary 27 Restraining Order and Motion to Enjoin Transfer. ECF Nos. 3, 4. Respondents are hereby 28 1 |} ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a 2 || written Response by December 24, 2025. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in 3 || support of the Petition by December 26, 2025. 4 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 5 ||not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 6 || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB,

at *2 (S.D. 7 |{Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 8 ||determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 9 || pending resolution from the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 10 No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 11 |/restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 12 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 13 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 14 || further order of this Court’); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump,

(2025) (finding 15 || that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 16 || the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 17 CV-01398,

, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 18 Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: December 19, 2025 21 “ur Sin, 22 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28