Davut v. Noem et al

1
3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL
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
ABDULGANI DAVUT,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL
ORDER:
(1) REQUIRING RESPONSE TO
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. No. 1];
(2) DENYING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. No. 2]
Petitioner Abdulgani Davut (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”),] and a motion for temporary
restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims that he has been out of custody
under an order of supervision until he was unlawfully detained without adequate notice by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on December 1, 2025. [Petition at 4–5.]
Petitioner also seeks to enjoin ICE from removing him to a third country without adequate
notice and an opportunity to be heard. [Petition at 12.]
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,
Case 3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL Document 3 Filed 12/26/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL
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
palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 	Therefore, the Court will order a
response to the Petition.
Turning to the TRO, the Court denies the ex parte motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without
notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is for the opposing party to be
served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an opposition. 	See Granny Goose
Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415
U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and their
“stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126,
1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). 	Though counsel for Petitioner certified that a copy of the
Petition and the motion for TRO was emailed to the United States Attorney’s Office, no
counsel for Respondents has appeared or been identified. [TRO at 12.] The Court instead
provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO with a determination
on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC
v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court
can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous notice”).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents shall file a response by January 5, 2026. 	The response must
address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any
documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply by January 7, 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
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]
Case 3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL Document 3 Filed 12/26/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL
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
4. 	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: December 26, 2025
subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”)
(collecting cases).
Case 3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL Document 3 Filed 12/26/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3