Kiwana v. LaRose et al

1
25-cv-3678-JES-SBC
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
OWEN MUKIIBI KIWANA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER G. LAROSE, in his
official capacity as Warden of CCA
Detention facility, DANIEL
BRIGHTMAN, in his official capacity as
Field Office Director of the Immigration &
Customs Enforcement and Removal
Operations San Diego Field Office;
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3678-JES-SBC
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 and MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
[ECF Nos. 1, 2]
Before the Court is Petitioner Owen Mukiibi Kiwana’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”), which were filed on December 19, 2025. ECF Nos. 1, 2.
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v.
Case 3:25-cv-03678-JES-SBC Document 3 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3678-JES-SBC
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
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 and TRO
should not be granted by FILING a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
December 	29, 	2025. 	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 and TRO 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 Wednesday, December 31, 2025. Thereafter, the Court
will take the matter under submission, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise
ordered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-03678-JES-SBC Document 3 Filed 12/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2