Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J.

S.D. California

Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J.

DecidedNovember 26, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-03298

StatusUnknown

This text of Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J. (Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OBDULIO REYES BENITEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3298-JES-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, U.S. PETITIONER TO PRESERVE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 JURISDICTION SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. 16 ATTORNEY GENERAL; TODD (2) SETTING BRIEFING LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, 17 SCHEDULE; and IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 18 ENFORCEMENT; GREGORY J. (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR, SAN 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, IMMIGRATION CORPUS AND TEMPORARY 20 AND CUSTOMS, CHRISTOPHER J. RESTRAINING ORDER; LACROSE, SENIOR WARDEN, OTAY 21 MESA DETENTION CENTER; 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR [ECF Nos. 1, 2] IMMIGRATION REVIEW; 23 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 24 ENFORCEMENT; AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 25 SECURITY, 26 Respondents. 27 28 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Obdulio Reyes Benitez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 2 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 3 (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner paid the associated fee this action, filed it, and the TRO, 4 on November 25, 2025. Id. The Court addresses both filings below. 5 A. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 16 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 approval from the court). 21 B. Petition and TRO 22 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 23 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 24 2, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 25 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 26 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 27 Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition and TRO no 28 later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. Upon receipt of the Response, the 1 |} Court will consider the matter fully briefed, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise 2 || ordered, and the matter will be taken under submission. 3 Finally, the Court provides notice to the Parties that it intends to consolidate the 4 || Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 5 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of 6 || Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) 7 ||by giving "clear and unambiguous notice"). In other words, the Court intends to resolve 8 || both the Petition and the TRO. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 26, 2025 i Sa— Sin, 12 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OBDULIO REYES BENITEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3298-JES-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, U.S. PETITIONER TO PRESERVE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 JURISDICTION SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. 16 ATTORNEY GENERAL; TODD (2) SETTING BRIEFING LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, 17 SCHEDULE; and IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 18 ENFORCEMENT; GREGORY J. (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR, SAN 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, IMMIGRATION CORPUS AND TEMPORARY 20 AND CUSTOMS, CHRISTOPHER J. RESTRAINING ORDER; LACROSE, SENIOR WARDEN, OTAY 21 MESA DETENTION CENTER; 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR [ECF Nos. 1, 2] IMMIGRATION REVIEW; 23 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 24 ENFORCEMENT; AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 25 SECURITY, 26 Respondents. 27 28 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Obdulio Reyes Benitez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 2 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 3 (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner paid the associated fee this action, filed it, and the TRO, 4 on November 25, 2025. Id. The Court addresses both filings below. 5 A. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 16 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 approval from the court). 21 B. Petition and TRO 22 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 23 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 24 2, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 25 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 26 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 27 Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition and TRO no 28 later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. Upon receipt of the Response, the 1 |} Court will consider the matter fully briefed, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise 2 || ordered, and the matter will be taken under submission. 3 Finally, the Court provides notice to the Parties that it intends to consolidate the 4 || Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 5 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of 6 || Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) 7 ||by giving "clear and unambiguous notice"). In other words, the Court intends to resolve 8 || both the Petition and the TRO. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 26, 2025 i Sa— Sin, 12 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obdulio-reyes-benitez-v-kristi-noem-secretary-us-department-of-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack