Rash v. LaRose et al

1
26cv0008-LL-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MOHAMMAD RASH,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv0008-LL-DEB
ORDER SCREENING PETITION,
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE,
AND ISSUING LIMITED
INJUNCTION
[ECF No. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mohammad Rash’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Courts must screen habeas petitions
and dismiss them “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, Rule 4; id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). To survive screening, a petitioner need only
make out a claim that is sufficiently “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the
government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024). Indeed, “as
long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify
summary dismissal under Rule 4.” Id.; see Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th
Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition
Case 3:26-cv-00008-LL-DEB Document 2 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26cv0008-LL-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are vague or conclusory or palpably incredible or patently frivolous or false.” (citations,
quotation marks, and brackets omitted)). Here, based on the alleged background, the Court
finds that Petitioner has adequately stated a claim that is cognizable enough to warrant an
answer.
Accordingly, by January 13, 2026, Respondents shall file a response to the Petition.
By January 20, 2026, Petitioner may file a reply. Following briefing, the Court will set a
hearing or take the matter under submission pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1. Respondents,
their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or
participation with them are also preliminarily ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from
this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo and allow the
Court to provide a reasoned decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (“[A]ll 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 and principles of law.”); E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-1230-SI, 2025 WL 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)). The Clerk
shall transmit this Order and the Petition to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00008-LL-DEB Document 2 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2