Loani Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02726
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOANI RODRIGUEZ-GUTIERREZ, Case No. 25-cv-02726-BAS-SBC

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 Loani Rodriguez-Gutierrez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner also filed a Motion to Appoint 1 Counsel (ECF No. 2) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“Motion for 2 Injunctive Relief”). (ECF No. 3.) The Court addresses each in turn. 3 I. PETITION 4 Petitioner is from Cuba. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges he is subject to a final order of 5 removal, but “Cuba has a longstanding policy of not accepting immigrants for deportation.” 6 (Id.) Thus, Petitioner claims there is not a significant likelihood of his removal in the 7 reasonably foreseeable future. (Id.) Nevertheless, he is being detained by Immigration 8 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Id.) Hence, Petitioner alleges that his detention 9 violates Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231; ICE’s regulations; 10 the Fifth Amendment; and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id.) Petitioner asks the 11 Court to order his release from ICE custody and enjoin Respondents from removing him 12 to any country other than Cuba without notice. (Id.) 13 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 14 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 15 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 16 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 17 Government to respond to the Petition. 18 II. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 19 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), the court may appoint counsel for financially 20 eligible habeas petitioners when “the interests of justice so require.” See Terrovona v. 21 Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether to appoint 22 counsel, courts consider the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability 23 to articulate claims pro se given the complexity of the issues. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 24 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 Here, Petitioner has cited legal authority to support his Petition and Motion for 26 Injunctive Relief, demonstrating that his arguments are legally grounded and non- 27 frivolous. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) Further, the Court finds that it is unlikely Petitioner can 28 adequately present his claims pro se without counsel’s assistance due to the complexity of 1 the legal issues involving constitutional law, statutory interpretation, administrative 2 procedure, and habeas law. While Petitioner has articulated his claims in his filings, he 3 appears to have received assistance from Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., who now 4 seeks appointment as counsel. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders to represent him. 6 III. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 7 Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court grants in part and denies in 8 part the ex parte request for a temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 9 “While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without 10 notice to an opposing party), the Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The 11 Court’s strong preference is for the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable 12 opportunity to file an opposition.” Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also Granny 13 Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda 14 Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and 15 their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 16 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). 17 Here, the Court finds it is necessary to enter a limited injunction to preserve its 18 jurisdiction until the Court can rule on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see also FTC 19 v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966); Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1006 20 n.6 (9th Cir. 2020). If Respondents remove Petitioner to a country other than Cuba without 21 notice, the Court will be unable to provide relief if the Petition proves to be meritorious. 22 Therefore, Respondents, along with their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all 23 persons acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to a 24 country other than Cuba without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Unless extended 25 by the Court, this Order will expire fourteen days after entry. 26 As to the rest of Petitioner’s ex parte filing, including his request that the Court order 27 him to be released, the Court finds it appropriate to consider the Motion for Injunctive 28 1 Relief under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond. 2 Hence, the Court will set a briefing schedule on the Motion for Injunctive Relief. 3 Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the 4 Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 6 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear 7 and unambiguous notice”). In other words, the Court intends to resolve both the Petition 8 and the Motion for Injunctive Relief simultaneously. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 11 1. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 2.) The 12 Court APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent Petitioner for this 13 matter. 14 2. The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for 15 Injunctive Relief no later than Monday, October 27, 2025. The Government’s response 16 must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the 17 determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 18 3. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for 19 Injunctive Relief no later than Monday, November 3, 2025. 20 4. The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on Friday, November 7, 2025, at 21 2:30 p.m. for a hearing on the Petition and the Motion for Injunctive Relief. 22 5. Respondents, along with their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and 23 all persons acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to a 24 country other than Cuba without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Unless extended 25 by the Court, this Order will expire fourteen days after entry. 26 // 27 // 28 // I 6. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 2 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 3 and this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ~ 6 || DATED: October 20, 2025 id (Dipharb 7 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 eg]