Atencio Machado v. Director of the Otay Mesa Detention Center et al

1
25-cv-3277-JES-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIA EUGENIA ATENCIO MACHADO,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3277-JES-JLB
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(2) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; and
(3) STAYING REMOVAL OF
PETITIONER TO PRESERVE
JURISDICTION
[ECF Nos. 1, 2]
Before the Court is Petitioner Maria Eugenia Atencio Machado’s (“Petitioner”)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On November
19, 2025, Petitioner filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which
she attests that she has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee on November 19, 2025. ECF
No. 2. The Court addresses both filings below.
The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk
shall FILE the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.
Case 3:25-cv-03277-JES-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25-cv-3277-JES-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v.
Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)
(“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it
has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from
the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June
4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court
hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors,
attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing
Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”);
see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue
injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction
over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D.
Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without
approval from the court).
Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not
be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025.
The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues
raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is
necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner.
Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m.
on Tuesday, December 2, 2025.
At that point, the matter will be fully briefed. No oral argument will be required, and
the Court will take it under submission.
//
//
//
//
Case 3:25-cv-03277-JES-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25-cv-3277-JES-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-03277-JES-JLB Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3