Darwin Alexander Maldonado-Aldana v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARWIN ALEXANDER Case No.: 26cv0723-LL-MMP MALDONADO-ALDANA, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE Petitioner, 13 TO PETITION AND SETTING v. BRIEFING SCHEDULE CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; et al., 17 Respondents.

19 Petitioner Darwin Alexander Maldonado-Aldana is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On February 5, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

22 ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection as an unaccompanied minor in November 2018. Pet. ¶ 1. He was apprehended by immigration authorities shortly thereafter and in March 2019, was released from the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to his uncle. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.

26 Petitioner was at liberty for the next six years until he was arrested by immigration authorities on November 7, 2025 in Virginia, and then subsequently transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center where he remains detained. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. Petitioner alleges that he is wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. ¶¶ 41–48. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia, release him from custody or alternatively, provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at 11.

5 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)).

9 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 13 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)).

16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 17 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 17, 2026. The Return shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondents shall serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing.

22 2. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before February 23, 2026.

27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages l 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 2 without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are || notified otherwise.

4 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing || Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, ||to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.

8 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 9 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: February 6, 2026 NO 12 QF 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 4 United States District Judge