Abdulgani Davut v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 26, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03740
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDULGANI DAVUT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. No. 1]; 15 Respondents. (2) DENYING TEMPORARY 16 RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. No. 2] 17 18 Petitioner Abdulgani Davut (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”),] and a motion for temporary 20 restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims that he has been out of custody 21 under an order of supervision until he was unlawfully detained without adequate notice by 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on December 1, 2025. [Petition at 4–5.] 23 Petitioner also seeks to enjoin ICE from removing him to a third country without adequate 24 notice and an opportunity to be heard. [Petition at 12.] 25 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 26 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 28 1 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order a 2 response to the Petition. 3 Turning to the TRO, the Court denies the ex parte motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 4 While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without 5 notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is for the opposing party to be 6 served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an opposition. See Granny Goose 7 Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 8 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and their 9 “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 10 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). Though counsel for Petitioner certified that a copy of the 11 Petition and the motion for TRO was emailed to the United States Attorney’s Office, no 12 counsel for Respondents has appeared or been identified. [TRO at 12.] The Court instead 13 provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO with a determination 14 on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC 15 v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court 16 can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous notice”). 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 18 1. Respondents shall file a response by January 5, 2026. The response must 19 address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any 20 documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised. 21 2. Petitioner may file a reply by January 7, 2026. 22 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 23 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 24 Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 25 California pending the Court’s resolution of the petition.1 26

27 1 See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 28 1 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 2 || Office with a copy of the petition and this order. 3 4 Itis SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 26, 2025 (yge— 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3g || subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases).