Alvaro Matias Grosso v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03593
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALVARO MATIAS GROSSO, Case No.: 25-cv-3593-JES-BLM

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS OF HABEAS CORPUS; ENFORCEMENT, 15 Respondent. (2) DENYING MOTION TO STAY 16 AS MOOT; and 17 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 18 APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT 19 20 [ECF Nos. 1-3] 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Alvaro Matias Grosso’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner concurrently 24 filed a motion to stay. ECF No. 2. Petitioner also subsequently filed a motion to appoint 25 counsel. ECF No. 3. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court declines 26 to issue an order to show cause and DENIES the petition without prejudice. 27 Petitioner is a native of Italy and is currently being detained at Otay Mesa Detention 28 Center. ECF No. 1 at 1. He is currently in removal proceedings. Id. at 4. He alleges that he 1 is a victim of human trafficking and appears to have a pending T-Visa case in front of U.S. 2 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. at 5-6. In his petition, he seeks (1) 3 immediate release; (2) dismissal of his immigration court charges “due to [his] situation as 4 [a] victim[]”; (3) expedited processing of his USCIS case; and (4) an opportunity to contest 5 his case with USCIS. Id. at 7. 6 Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ 7 or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, 8 unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled 9 thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations 10 in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.” 11 Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v. 12 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)). 13 Here, Petitioner is not requesting any relief that is cognizable on habeas relief. On 14 habeas, district courts may not review discretionary decisions made by immigration 15 authorities, and may only review immigration-related detentions to determine if they 16 comport with the requirements of the Constitution. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688, 17 (2001). Further, jurisdiction to review any challenges to underlying immigration orders, 18 including removal orders, does not rest with the district court, but with appellate courts. 19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Most of Petitioner’s relief asks the Court to interfere with his 20 underlying and pending immigration proceedings, which the Court cannot do. While 21 Petitioner does make a request for immediate release, he identifies no grounds, 22 constitutional or otherwise, as to why he is entitled to this relief. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice, 2 DENIES the motion to stay and motion for appointment of counsel as moot. The Clerk 3 directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 12, 2026 6 =| we San— 1, 7 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28