Sergio Escobar-Mendoza v. Christopher J. LaRose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SERGIO ESCOBAR-MENDOZA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0078-JES-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF PETITIONER TO PRESERVE CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, SENIOR 15 JURISDICTION WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER; GREGORY J. (2) SETTING BRIEFING ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR, SAN 17 SCHEDULE; and DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS; KRISTI NOEM, (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS HOMELAND SECURITY; and PAM CORPUS BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL 21 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Sergio Escobar-Mendoza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner SHALL NOT be removed from 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. Cal. 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 10 91, 97 (2025) (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).

14 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 15 granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2026. The 16 Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in ||the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is necessary.

18 ||Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. Petitioner may || file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, || January 12, 2026. Upon receipt of the Response, the Court will consider the matter fully 21 briefed, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise ordered, and the matter will be ||taken under submission.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 || Dated: January 7, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge