Katya Alexandra Garcia-Henriquez v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KATYA ALEXANDRA GARCIA- Case No.: 3:26-cv-00249-RBM-BJW HENRIQUEZ, 10 ORDER: Petitioner, 11 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA 13 AND DETENTION CENTER, et al.,

14 Respondents. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 15 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16

17 [Docs. 1–3]

18 19 20 On January 13, 2026, Petitioner Katya Alexandra Garcia-Henriquez (“Petitioner”), 21 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Unlawful and Prolonged 22 Detention (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Emergency Motion 23 for Expedited Review (Doc. 3). In the Petition, Petitioner claims she is being detained at 24 the Otay Mesa Detention Center in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 25 Clause. (Doc. 1 at 1.) 26 That same day, Petitioner also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court 27 without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Motion”) in which she attests she has no means to 28 pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 1 || Motion. The Clerk shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 2 The Court also finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See 3 || Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 4 ||appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 5 ||incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). Respondents are hereby 6 || ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 23, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why 7 || the Petition should not be granted by: (1) filing a written response; (2) filing as exhibits all 8 documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition, 9 |\including, any documents reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history and any decisions 10 |/issued by the immigration court to the extent they exist; and (3) making a recommendation 11 regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner MAY FILE a reply on or before 12 || January 30, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time 13 the Parties shall await further order from the Court. 14 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner 15 || SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling 16 ||in this matter. See Doe v. Bondi, Case No.: 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *1 17 ||(S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo 18 || while determining whether [they have] subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a 19 || petition is pending resolution from the court.”’) (collecting cases). 20 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition 21 ||(Doc. 1), the Emergency Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 3), and this Order to the 22 || United States Attorney’s Office. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||DATE: January 16, 2026 2 RBar, Margy □□ 6 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28