Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1558-CAB-BLM
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
FELIX DOPAZO-BARROSO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL
DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1558-CAB-BLM
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[Doc. No. 2]; AND
(2) ORDERING RESPONSE
Petitioner, an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se1, has filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	[Doc. No. 1
(“Petition”).] He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests
he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. [Doc. No. 2 (“IFP”).] The Court GRANTS
1 Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego to see if a Federal Defender
can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is
619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877- 404-
9063).
Case 3:26-cv-01558-CAB-DEB Document 3 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-1558-CAB-BLM
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
Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The Clerk shall file the Petition
without prepayment of the filing fee.
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at
this time. 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.”).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents shall file a response to the Petition by March 25, 2026. 	The
response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents
relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition.
2. 	Respondents shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by March 26,
2026.
3. 	Petitioner may file a reply by April 6, 2026.
4. 	To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, 	attorneys, 	and 	other 	persons 	who 	act 	in 	concert 	or 	participation 	with
Respondents 	SHALL NOT transfer 	Petitioner 	outside 	of 	the 	Southern 	District 	of
California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.2
5. 	The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office with a copy of the Petition and this Order.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
2 See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-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).
Case 3:26-cv-01558-CAB-DEB Document 3 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2