Escobar-Mendoza v. Larose et al

1
3:26-cv-0078-JES-DEB
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
SERGIO ESCOBAR-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, SENIOR
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER; GREGORY J.
ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR, SAN
DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS; KRISTI NOEM,
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; and PAM
BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0078-JES-DEB
ORDER:
(1) STAYING REMOVAL OF
PETITIONER TO PRESERVE
JURISDICTION
(2) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; and
(3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Sergio Escobar-Mendoza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction
pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner SHALL NOT be removed from this District
Case 3:26-cv-00078-JES-DEB Document 2 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-0078-JES-DEB
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
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) (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).
Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not
be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2026. The
Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in
the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is necessary.
Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. Petitioner may
file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
January 12, 2026. Upon receipt of the Response, the Court will consider the matter fully
briefed, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise ordered, and the matter will be
taken under submission.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00078-JES-DEB Document 2 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2