Garcia-Henriquez v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center et al

1
3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW
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
KATYA ALEXANDRA GARCIA-
HENRIQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
AND
(2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
[Docs. 1–3]
On January 13, 2026, Petitioner Katya Alexandra Garcia-Henriquez (“Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Unlawful and Prolonged
Detention (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Emergency Motion
for Expedited Review (Doc. 3). In the Petition, Petitioner claims she is being detained at
the Otay Mesa Detention Center in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. (Doc. 1 at 1.)
That same day, Petitioner also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Motion”) in which she attests she has no means to
pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s
Case 3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW
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
IFP Motion. The Clerk shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee.
The Court also finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. 	See
Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is
appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably
incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). 	Respondents are hereby
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 23, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why
the Petition should not be granted by: (1) filing a written response; (2) filing as exhibits all
documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition,
including, any documents reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history and any decisions
issued by the immigration court to the extent they exist; and (3) making a recommendation
regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner MAY FILE a reply on or before
January 30, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time
and the Parties shall await further order from the Court.
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner
SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling
in this matter. See Doe v. Bondi, Case No.: 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *1
(S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo
while determining whether [they have] subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a
petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases).
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition
(Doc. 1), the Emergency Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 3), and this Order to the
United States Attorney’s Office.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 16, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2