Maldonado-Aldana v. LaRose et al

1
26cv0723-LL-MMP
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
DARWIN ALEXANDER
MALDONADO-ALDANA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior
Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center;
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv0723-LL-MMP
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
TO PETITION AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Petitioner Darwin Alexander Maldonado-Aldana is a detainee in the custody of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On
February 5, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States
without inspection as an unaccompanied minor in November 2018. Pet. ¶ 1. He was
apprehended by immigration authorities shortly thereafter and in March 2019, was released
from the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to his uncle. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.
Petitioner was at liberty for the next six years until he was arrested by immigration
authorities on November 7, 2025 in Virginia, and then subsequently transferred to Otay
Mesa Detention Center where he remains detained. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. Petitioner alleges that he
Case 3:26-cv-00723-LL-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv0723-LL-MMP
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
is wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) in violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. ¶¶ 41–48. He seeks a
writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia, release him from custody or
alternatively, provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at 11.
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
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 17, 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
February 23, 2026.
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-00723-LL-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv0723-LL-MMP
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
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.
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 6, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00723-LL-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3