Matheus Malta De Sa v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00594
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 MATHEUS MALTA DE SA,

8 Petitioner, Case No. 2:26-cv-00594-RFB-MDC

9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10 KRISTI NOEM, et al.,

11 Respondents.

12 13 Petitioner Matheus Malta De Sa, an immigration detainee, has filed a counseled amended 14 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 8). Through it, he challenges the lawfulness of his 15 ongoing detention at Nevada Southern Detention Center in the custody of Federal Respondents. 16 The Court has reviewed the Petition and preliminarily finds Petitioner can likely demonstrate that 17 the circumstances of his prolonged civil detention warrant relief from this Court. 18 Therefore, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Writ should not be 19 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Respondents shall file, in writing, a (i) notice of appearance and 20 (ii) “a return certifying the true cause of detention” on or before March 26, 2026. See id. 21 Petitioner may file a traverse on or before March 31, 2026. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Parties shall indicate in their briefing whether they 23 request oral argument or an evidentiary hearing on the Petition. The Court is amenable to ruling 24 on the papers if the Parties indicate that they are willing to waive a hearing. If Respondents do not 25 plan to offer new arguments—i.e., arguments which have not been addressed by this Court—they 26 may: indicate as much, reference their previous briefing, and reserve their appellate rights. They 27 may not, however, incorporate briefing in a manner that would circumvent the page limits under 28 LSR 3-2 without leave. Respondents should file any referenced briefing as an attachment for 1 Petitioner’s Counsel’s review. 2 Additionally, the Court finds Petitioner has established a prima facie case for relief and 3 that ordering Respondents to produce documents reflecting the basis for their detention of 4 Petitioner is necessary for the Court to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” See 5 Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290 (1969) (holding that “a district court, confronted by a petition 6 for habeas corpus which establishes a prima facie case for relief, may use or authorize the use of 7 suitable discovery procedures . . . reasonably fashioned to elicit facts necessary to help the court 8 to ‘dispose of the matter as law and justice require’”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Therefore, IT IS 9 FURTHER ORDERED Respondents must FILE the following documents alongside their 10 return: (1) I-200 Warrant for Arrest of Alien; (2) Form I-862 Initial Custody Determination; (3) I- 11 862 Notice to Appear; (4) Form I-213 Record of Deportable or Inadmissible Alien; (5) 12 all immigration court orders in Petitioner’s removal proceedings; (6) documents certifying any 13 appeal of any immigration court orders by the Department of Homeland Security or Petitioner; 14 (7) transcripts and/or audio recordings of any custody redetermination proceedings. Alternatively, 15 Respondents may CERTIFY that these materials are not in their possession or control. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Local Rules 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 will govern the requirements 17 and scheduling of all other motions filed by either party. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Parties shall file all documents and exhibits in accordance 19 with Local Rules LR IA 10-1 through 10-5. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Parties must meet and confer regarding any requests for 21 an extension of deadlines and stipulate to the extension if possible. Any motion for extension must 22 certify efforts taken to meet and confer and indicate the opposing party’s position regarding the 23 extension. Any motion or stipulation must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 24 Local Rules IA 6-1, 6-2. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner out of this 26 District. This Court has “express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary 27 injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction.” F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 28 U.S. 597, 601 (1966); see also Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1007 n.6 (9th Cir. 2020) (Having concluded that [agency action] would interfere with the court’s jurisdiction ... , the 2 | district court properly issued an injunction under the All Writs Act.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § □□□□ □□□□□ 3 | Were Petitioner prematurely removed from the United States District of Nevada, or more broadly 4| the United States, their removal could interfere with the Court's jurisdiction over his claims. Given 5 | the exigent circumstances surrounding Petitioner, the Court finds that this Order is warranted to 6 | maintain the status quo pending resolution of his case on the merits, and the Court finds that 7 | Petitioner has satisfied the factors governing the issuance of such preliminary relief. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to: 9 1. ADD the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada to the docket as an Interested 10 | Party. Pursuant to the District of Nevada’s General Order 2026-03 (Feb 13, 2026), this constitutes 11 | service on all federal respondents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 12 2. ADD Counsel for Respondent John Mattos at ahesman@strucklove.com to the docket. 13 | Then, SEND them a copy of the First Amended Petition (ECF No. 8) and this Order through 14) CM/ECF. 15 3. MAIL a copy of the First Amended Petition (ECF No. 8) and this Order pursuant to 16| Rule 4(1)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Respondent John Mattos at Nevada 17 | Southern Detention Center, 2190 E. Mesquite Ave., Pahrump, NV 89060. 18 19 DATED: March 23, 2026. ,

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-