Ozgur Yalnizkurt v. Christopher Larose, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03752
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 OZGUR YALNIZKURT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3752-CAB-MSB

14 Petitioner, ORDER TO RESPOND 15 v. 16 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al., [Doc. No. 1] 17 Respondents. 18 19 On December 23, 2025, Petitioner Ozgur Yalnizkurt filed a petition for a writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] In his Petition, 21 Petitioner claims that he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 22 (“ICE”) without a bond hearing in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, 23 Administrative Procedure Act, and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). [Petition at 6–12.] He seeks 24 immediate release or, at minimum, a bond hearing within 14 days. [Id. at 12–13.] 25 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 26 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 28 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). The Court therefore ORDERS a 1 ||response to the Petition as follows: 2 1. Respondents must file a response to the Petition no later than January 5, 3 ||2026. The response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any 4 ||documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 5 2. Petitioner may file a reply by January 8, 2026. 6 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 7 || Office with a copy of the Petition, [Doc. No. 1], and this Order. 8 4. Additionally, to maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, 9 ||servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 10 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 11 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! 12 It is SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 29, 2025 € 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 28 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases). 45