(HC) A. v. Noem, et al

1
3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG
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
A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
PROCEED WITH PSEUDONYM
[Docs. 3, 19];
(2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner A.A. (“Petitioner”) filed a Verified Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to §2241 in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1.) That same day, Petitioner also filed an Ex Parte
Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re:
Preliminary 	Injunction 	(“TRO 	Motion”) 	(Doc. 	2), 	and 	a 	Motion 	to 	Proceed 	with
Pseudonym (“Pseudonym Motion”) (Doc. 3).
After the Parties had fully briefed the TRO Motion and the Pseudonym Motion (see
Doc. 5), and after a ruling had been issued (see Doc. 11), the instant action was transferred
Case 3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG Document 22 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG
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
to this District on January 21, 2026. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner then filed an Amended Petition
(Doc. 17), an Amended TRO Motion (Doc. 18), and an Amended Pseudonym Motion
(Doc. 19). 	Petitioner asserts that the only amendments made were to correct the caption
(see Doc. 18 at 1 n.1) and to “reflect the correct detention facility/warden and venue” in
the Petition (Doc. 17 ¶ 1.)
I. 	PSEUDONYM MOTION
Although petitioners must typically identify themselves in pleadings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), they may “use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when
nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment,
injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,
214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). 	The Court must
“balance the need for anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are
public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068.
Petitioner alleges that he should be allowed to proceed pseudonymously because he
survived persecution of a sensitive nature and disclosure of his identity could lead to further
stigma and harm. 	(Doc. 3 at 3–4). 	Respondents do not oppose the Pseudonym Motion.
(See Doc. 8.) 	The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient need for
anonymity and that the use of a pseudonym here will not prejudice Respondents or
diminish the public’s understanding of the issues or resolution of Petitioner’s claim.
Petitioner’s use of a pseudonym is therefore GRANTED.
Petitioner also requests that any names or identifying information relating to him
and his family be redacted and that the sharing of this information be limited to what is
reasonably necessary for the litigation. (Doc. 3 at 6–7.) Because Petitioner has not cited
any authority or arguments in support of these additional requests, the Court DENIES such
requests without prejudice. 	Accordingly, the Pseudonym Motion (Docs. 3, 19) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
II. 	SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Pursuant to Judge Dale A. Drozd’s order in the Eastern District of California (see
Case 3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG Document 22 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG
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
Doc. 5), the Parties had fully briefed the TRO Motion before this action was transferred to
this Court. Petitioner asserts that the only amendments made were to correct the caption
of the TRO Motion (see 	Doc. 18 at 1 n.1) and to “reflect the correct detention
facility/warden and venue” in the Petition (Doc. 17 ¶ 1.)
As it appears that the legal claims at issue remain the same, Petitioner and
Respondents 	are 	ORDERED 	to 	file, 	on 	or 	before 	February 	10, 	2026: 	(1) 	any
supplemental briefing necessary to this Court’s determination of the issues raised in the
Petition; or (2) a statement indicating that they wish to submit the Petition on their
currently-filed briefs. If Petitioner or Respondents wish to file supplemental briefing, they
must also submit as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the
issues raised in the Petition and make a recommendation regarding the need for an
evidentiary hearing. 	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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 5, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00397-RBM-AHG Document 22 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3