Inpone Omdara v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02834
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INPONE OMDARA, Case No. 25-cv-02834-BAS-MMP

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 15 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 16

17 (2) GRANTING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 18 (ECF No. 2); 19 (3) SETTING HEARING ON 20 PETITION; 21 (4) PROVIDING NOTICE UNDER 22 RULE 65(a)(2); AND 23 (5) PRESERVING THE COURT’S 24 JURISDICTION 25 26

27 Petitioner Inpone Omdara filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 1 2) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). 2 (ECF No. 3.) The Court addresses each in turn. 3 I. PETITION 4 Petitioner “was born in a refugee camp in Thailand” and is “the son of Laotian 5 immigrants.” (Pet. at 1.) He alleges he is subject to an order of removal. (Id.) However, 6 Petitioner claims there is no repatriation agreement between Laos and the United States. 7 (Id. at 4.) Further, “Laos has also been historically unwilling to accept deportees from the 8 United States through informal negotiations.” (Id.) Thus, Petitioner claims there is not a 9 significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Id. at 15.) 10 Nevertheless, he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 11 (Id.) Hence, Petitioner alleges that his detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 12 (2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1231; ICE’s regulations; and the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at 7–20.) 13 Petitioner asks the Court to order his release from ICE custody and enjoin Respondents 14 from removing him to any country other than Laos without notice. (Id. at 20–21.) 15 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 16 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 17 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 18 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 19 Government to respond to the Petition. 20 II. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 21 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), the court may appoint counsel for financially 22 eligible habeas petitioners when “the interests of justice so require.” See Terrovona v. 23 Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether to appoint 24 counsel, courts consider the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability 25 to articulate claims pro se given the complexity of the issues. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 26 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 Here, Petitioner has cited legal authority to support his Petition and Motion for 28 Injunctive Relief, demonstrating that his arguments are legally grounded and non- 1 frivolous. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) Further, the Court finds that it is unlikely Petitioner can 2 adequately present his claims pro se without counsel’s assistance due to the complexity of 3 the legal issues involving constitutional law, statutory interpretation, administrative 4 procedure, and habeas law. While Petitioner has articulated his claims in his filings, he 5 appears to have received assistance from Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., which now 6 seeks appointment as counsel. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders to represent him. 8 III. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 9 Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court grants in part and denies in 10 part the ex parte request for a temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 11 “While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without 12 notice to an opposing party), the Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The 13 Court’s strong preference is for the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable 14 opportunity to file an opposition.” Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also Granny 15 Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda 16 Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and 17 their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 18 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). 19 Here, the Court finds it is necessary to enter a limited injunction to preserve its 20 jurisdiction until the Court can rule on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see also FTC 21 v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966); Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1006 22 n.6 (9th Cir. 2020). One of Petitioner’s claims is that his summary removal to a country 23 other than Laos would violate his rights. (Pet. at 16–20.) Hence, if Respondents remove 24 Petitioner to a country other than Laos without notice, the Court will be unable to provide 25 relief if the Petition proves to be meritorious. Therefore, Respondents, along with their 26 agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them, are 27 ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to a country other than Laos without notice and an 28 1 opportunity to be heard. Unless extended by the Court, this Order will expire fourteen days 2 after entry. 3 As to the rest of Petitioner’s ex parte filing, including his request that the Court order 4 him to be released, the Court finds it appropriate to consider the Motion for Injunctive 5 Relief under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond. 6 Hence, the Court will set a briefing schedule on the Motion for Injunctive Relief. 7 Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the 8 Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 10 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear 11 and unambiguous notice”). In other words, the Court intends to resolve both the Petition 12 and the Motion for Injunctive Relief simultaneously. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 15 1. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 2.) The 16 Court APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent Petitioner for this 17 matter. 18 2. The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for 19 Injunctive Relief no later than Friday, October 31, 2025. The Government’s response 20 must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the 21 determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 22 3. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for 23 Injunctive Relief no later than Friday, November 7, 2025. 24 4. The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on Friday, November 14, 2025, 25 at 11:00 a.m. for a hearing on the Petition and the Motion for Injunctive Relief. 26 5. Respondents, along with their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and 27 all persons acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to a 28 1 |}country other than Laos without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Unless extended 2 || by the Court, this Order will expire fourteen days after entry. 3 6. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 4 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 5 and this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ~ g || DATED: October 24, 2025 (yatta Bahar 9 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28