Singh v. Divver et al

1
3:25-cv-3671-JES-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
INDERJEET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
PATRICK DIVVER; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; RYAN HICKS; TODD M.
LYONS; KRISTI NOEM; PAM BONDI;
JEREMY CASEY; ALL PERSONS
HAVING CUSTODY OF THE
PETITIONER,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3671-JES-BLM
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING EMERGENCY
MOTION TO ENJOIN TRANSFER;
(2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER;
(2) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; AND
(3) STAYING REMOVAL OF
PETITIONER TO PRESERVE
JURISDICTION
[ECF No. 1, 4]
Before the Court is Petitioner Inderjeet Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Motion to Enjoin Transfer. ECF Nos. 3, 4. Respondents are hereby
Case 3:25-cv-03671-JES-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:25-cv-3671-JES-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
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a
written Response by December 24, 2025. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in
support of the Petition by December 26, 2025.
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders
otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D.
Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while
determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is
pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412,
ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary
restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their
agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation
with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending
further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding
that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to
the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-
CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the
Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-03671-JES-BLM Document 6 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2