Seyam v. Noem et al

1
25cv3850-LL-SBC
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
MAHMOD SEYAM,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Department
of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25cv3850-LL-SBC
ORDER SCREENING PETITION,
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE,
AND ISSUING LIMITED
INJUNCTION
[ECF No. 1]
Pending before the Court are Petitioner Mahmod Seyam’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
ECF Nos. 1, 2. Courts must screen habeas petitions and dismiss them “if it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4; id.,
Rule 1(b) (permitting use of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus
petition”). To survive screening, a petitioner need only make out a claim that is sufficiently
“cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth,
114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024). Indeed, “as long as a petition has any potential merit,
it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal under Rule 4.” Id.; see
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is
Case 3:25-cv-03850-LL-SBC Document 3 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25cv3850-LL-SBC
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
appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory or palpably
incredible or patently frivolous or false.” (citations, quotation marks, and brackets
omitted)). Here, based on the alleged background, the Court finds that Petitioner has
adequately stated a claim that is cognizable enough to warrant an answer.
Accordingly, by January 7, 2026, Respondents shall file a response to the Petition
and Motion for TRO. By January 12, 2026, Petitioner may file a reply. Following briefing,
the Court will set a hearing or take the matter under submission pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 7.1. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons
acting in active concert or participation with them are also preliminarily ENJOINED from
removing Petitioner from this district pending further order of the Court, to maintain the
status quo and allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
(“[A]ll courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law.”); E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 25-cv-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. July
16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their authority under the All Writs Act to
maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration matters by preserving the status quo.”
(collecting cases)). The Clerk shall transmit this Order and the Petition and Motion for
TRO to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03850-LL-SBC Document 3 Filed 01/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2