Colmenares Mendoza v. Field Office Director et al

1
26-cv-11-JES-VET
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
YOJELSY DAVID COLMENARES
MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, SAN DIEGO; and
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-11-JES-VET
ORDER:
(1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS;
(2) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; AND
(3) STAYING REMOVAL OF
PETITIONER TO PRESERVE
JURISDICTION
Before the Court is Petitioner Yojelsy David Colmenares Mendoza’s (“Petitioner”)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Respondents
are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted
by filing a written Response by January 9, 2026. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional
Traverse in support of the Petition by January 16, 2026.
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders
Case 3:26-cv-00011-JES-VET Document 2 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-11-JES-VET
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
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) (finding
that 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00011-JES-VET Document 2 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2