Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1097-CAB-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
RAFAEL MONTEPEQUE RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1097-CAB-DEB
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 2];
AND
(2) TO RESPOND.
Petitioner Rafael Montepeque Rodriguez has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] In response to the Court’s
Order to Show Cause regarding Petitioner’s detention location, Respondents confirmed
that he is currently housed in the Imperial Regional Detention Center in the Southern
District of California. [Doc. No. 5.] The Court is thus satisfied of its jurisdiction over the
Petition.
Petitioner, through counsel, has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in
which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. 	[Doc. No. 2.] 	The Court
GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the
Petition without prepayment of the filing fee.
Case 3:26-cv-01097-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-1097-CAB-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
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 by March 9, 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 12, 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.1
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 2, 2026
1 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-01097-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2