Tung Thanh Nguyen v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02760
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TUNG THANH NGUYEN, Case No.: 25-CV-2760 TWR (KSC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) REQUIRING RESPONSE 13 v. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) GRANTING 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR Department of Homeland Security; 15 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General; (3) GRANTING IN PART 16 TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 17 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office ORDER, (4) ORDERING 18 Director, San Diego Field Office; and RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden at 19 WHY A TRO AND/OR INJUNCTION Otay Mesa Detention Center, SHOULD NOT ISSUE, AND 20 Respondents. (5) SETTING SHOW CAUSE 21 HEARING

22 (ECF Nos. 1–3) 23

24 Presently before the Court are Petitioner Tung Thanh Nguyen’s (1) Petition for Writ 25 of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241; (2) Motion for 26 Appointment of Counsel (“Mot. for Counsel,” ECF No. 2); and (3) Notice of Motion and 27 Memorandum of Law in Support of Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (“Mot. for 28 TRO,” ECF No. 3), each of which the Court addresses in turn. 1 First, having reviewed the Petition, the Court concludes that summary dismissal is 2 unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 3 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 4 vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.” (citing Hendricks 5 v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990))). As in Phan v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2422 RBM 6 (MSB) (S.D. Cal. filed Sept. 16, 2025), and Quoc Ngo v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2739 TWR 7 (MMP) (S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 15, 2025), Petitioner contends that he is being detained by 8 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of ICE’s own regulations 9 concerning notice and an opportunity to be heard and the United States Supreme Court’s 10 decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and asks that the Court enjoin ICE 11 from removing him to a third country without providing him an opportunity to assert fear 12 of persecution or torture before an immigration judge. (See generally Pet.) Accordingly, 13 at this stage in the proceedings, the questions before the Court are (1) whether ICE 14 complied with its regulations, including 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i), before re- 15 detaining Petitioner; (2) whether Petitioner’s detention is lawful under Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 16 678; and (3) whether ICE can remove Petitioner to a third county without adequate notice 17 and an opportunity to be heard. Respondents Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of 18 Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, 19 ICE; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office; and Christopher 20 LaRose, Warden at Otay Mesa Detention Center SHALL RESPOND to the Petition on or 21 before noon (12:00 p.m.) on Wednesday, October 22, 2025. Petitioner SHALL SERVE 22 on Respondents copies of the Petition, the TRO Motion, and this Order as soon as 23 practicable and SHALL FILE proof of such service no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, 24 October 20, 2025. 25 Second, Petitioner seeks appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. in the 26 interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). (See generally Mot. for 27 Counsel.) Having considered the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Motion for Counsel, the 28 Court finds that the appointment of counsel is appropriate in this case given Petitioner’s 1 || likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 3 1997). The Court therefore GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Counsel (ECF No. 2) 4 ||and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him in this habeas 5 || proceeding. 6 Third, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary 7 || Restraining Order (ECF No. 3) and, until further Order of this Court, TEMPORARILY 8 || RESTRAINS Respondents from removing Petitioner to any country other than Vietnam 9 || while the Petition remains pending. The Court also ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW 10 ||} CAUSE why a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary or permanent injunction 11 |/should not issue on or before noon (12:00 p.m.) on Wednesday, October 22, 2025. 12 Finally, the Court SETS a Show Cause Hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 13 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 14A, to address both the Petition and Petitioner’s Motion for 14 || Temporary Restraining Order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: October 17, 2025 —— (2 17 [aD (re 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28