Dominguez Otapa v. Divver et al

1
26cv1010-LL-DDL
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
Inginio Dominguez Otapa,
Petitioner,
v.
Patrick Divver, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv1010-LL-DDL
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
TO PETITION AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Petitioner Inginio Dominguez Otapa is a detainee in the custody of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On February
18, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No.
1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on or about 2001. Pet. ¶
6. On December 8, 2025, Petitioner was apprehended by ICE while he was at Home Depot.
Id. He is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility. Id. Petitioner seeks a writ
of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia, hold a bond hearing pursuant to
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ----,
2025 WL 3289861, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). Id. ¶ 2.
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
Case 3:26-cv-01010-LL-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv1010-LL-DDL
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
dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or]
conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)).
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
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)).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. 	Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should
not be granted by filing a written Return on or before February 26, 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.
2. 	Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before March 3,
2026.
3. 	After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission
and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are
notified otherwise.
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.
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
and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Case 3:26-cv-01010-LL-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv1010-LL-DDL
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
5. 	The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF
No. 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01010-LL-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3