Opinions and documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Case No.: 25-cv-2868-JES-AGH
FILADELFO RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ
12
Petitioner, ORDER:
13
v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO
14
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
PATRICK DIVVER, San Diego Field
15 HABEAS CORPUS;
Office Director, Enforcement and
16 Removal Operations, United States
(2) SETTING A BRIEFING
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
17 SCHEDULE AND MOTION
(ICE); CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE,
HEARING; and
18 Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention
Center; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of
19 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF
Homeland Security; UNITED STATES
PETITIONER TO PRESERVE
20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
JURISDICTION
SECURITY (DHS); PAMELA BONDI,
21
Attorney General of the United States;
[ECF NO. 1, 2]
22 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR);
23
DAREN K. MARGOLIS Director EOIR;
24 in their official capacities
25 Respondents.
26 //
27 //
28 //
1 Before the Court is Petitioner Filadelfo Rodriguez-Sanchez’s Petition for Writ of
2 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Temporary
3 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2). Petitioner filed the Petition and
4 Motion and paid the required filing fee on October 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 1, 2.
5 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
6 not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders
7 otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D.
8 Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while
9 determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is
10 pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412,
11 ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary
12 restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their
13 agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation
14 with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending
15 further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding
16 that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to
17 the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-
18 CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the
19 Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court).
20 The Court sets forth the following:
21 1. Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the
22 Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response no later than 5:00
23 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2025.
24 2. Petitioner SHALL SERVE on Respondents copies of both the Petition and
25 this Order as soon as practicable and SHALL FILE proof of such service no
26 later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2025.
27 3. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later
28 than 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2025.
1 4. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to Show Cause Hearing for Friday, October
2 31, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 || Dated: October 24, 2025
6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr.
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.