Rafael Montepeque Rodriguez v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Opinion

RAFAEL MONTEPEQUE RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-1097-CAB-DEB

Petitioner, ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA KRISTI NOEM, et al., PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 2]; Respondents. AND

(2) TO RESPOND. Petitioner Rafael Montepeque Rodriguez has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] In response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause regarding Petitioner’s detention location, Respondents confirmed that he is currently housed in the Imperial Regional Detention Center in the Southern District of California. [Doc. No. 5.] The Court is thus satisfied of its jurisdiction over the Petition. Petitioner, through counsel, has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. [Doc. No. 2.] The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”’). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: l. Respondents shall file a response by March 9, 2026. The response must ;address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised. 2. Petitioner may file a reply by March 12, 2026. 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, }employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a copy of the Petition and this order. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2026

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 3g ||subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases).