Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01246-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
ENRIQUE BERNARDO CORREA
PAIVA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01246-CAB-DDL
(1) ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER;
[Docs. No. 1, 2]
(2) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ADD ADDITIONAL MAILING
ADDRESS
[Doc. No. 3]
Petitioner Enrique Bernardo Correa Paiva (“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 alleges he was detained by
immigration authorities on August 25, 2025 at a Customs and Border Protection checkpoint
despite having a pending asylum application. 	[TRO at 1.] 	Petitioner claims that he has
been detained since then without a bond hearing in violation of the Due Process Clause of
Case 3:26-cv-01246-CAB-DDL Document 7 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01246-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
the Fifth Amendment. [Petition at 6.] 	He seeks immediate release from custody, or at
minimum, a bond hearing. [Id. at 7.]
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.”). 	Therefore, the Court will order a
response to the Petition.
Turning to the TRO, 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). The Court will order a response and
consolidate a decision on the motion for 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 must invoke Rule
65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous notice”).
Petitioner also moves to add an additional mailing address to the docket. [Doc. No.
3.] Because the Court’s CM/ECF system does not permit the addition of multiple mailing
addresses for a pro se litigant, the request is DENIED.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-01246-CAB-DDL Document 7 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01246-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
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents shall file a response by March 12, 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. 	Respondents shall serve a
copy of the response on Petitioner by March 13, 2026.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply by March 20, 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
4. 	The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office with a copy of the Petition, the motion for TRO, and this order.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 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-01246-CAB-DDL Document 7 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3