Corado-Serrano v. Bondi et al

1
3:26-cv-1338-CAB-VET
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
LUIS ALBERTO CORADO-SERRANO,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1338-CAB-VET
ORDER:
(1) TO RESPOND [Doc. No. 1]; and
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AS MOOT [Doc. No. 2]
Petitioner Luis Alberto Corado-Serrano (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,1 filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)],
and a motion for temporary restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims that
he has been unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since
March 15, 2025. 	[Petition at 2.] 	Petitioner was ordered removed to Guatemala on
December 10, 2025, but has an appeal of that decision pending with the Board of
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-01338-CAB-VET Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-1338-CAB-VET
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
Immigration Appeals. [Id.] Petitioner also seeks to enjoin ICE from transferring him out
of this jurisdiction. [TRO at 3.]
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 16, 2026. 	The
response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents
relevant to the determination of the issues raised.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply by March 25, 2026.
3. 	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 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion
for TRO, [Doc. No. 2], is DENIED as moot because the relief it requests is preventing
transfer or deportation while the Petition is adjudicated.
4. 	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 9, 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-01338-CAB-VET Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2