Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2025

J.M.P v. Arteta

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:25-cv-04987
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureImmigration
In one sentence

In J.M.P. v. Arteta, Judge Ho barred removal and limited transfers while the case proceeds, and set response deadlines.

Who this affects

J.M.P., the Respondents, and their counsel; the order specifically restricts J.M.P.’s removal from the United States and transfers between detention facilities.

What happened

J.M.P. v. Arteta concerns a petition whose underlying claims are not described in this notice. Judge Dale E. Ho stated that the case had been assigned to him for all purposes.

To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, the order prohibits removing J.M.P. from the United States unless the Court later orders otherwise. It also prohibits transferring J.M.P. except to a facility in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey, unless the Court orders otherwise.

Judge Ho set July 25, 2025, for the Respondents’ response and August 1, 2025, for J.M.P.’s reply, if any. The order also directed J.M.P.’s counsel to serve the Respondents with the petition and related papers within two days and directed Respondents’ counsel to enter appearances.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
J.M.P v. Arteta · No. 1:25-cv-04987
Judge
Ho
Date
June 16, 2025

Nature of the Order

This document is a notice of conference and an interim order. It does not decide the underlying petition, and the opinion does not describe the petition’s claims.

Orders Preserving the Court’s Jurisdiction

Judge Dale E. Ho stated that the case had been assigned to him for all purposes. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction while the matter is pending, the Court ordered that J.M.P. must not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise.

The Court also ordered that J.M.P. must not be transferred except to a facility within the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey, unless the Court issues a further order. The Court cited the All Writs Act, a federal law authorizing courts to issue orders necessary to protect their jurisdiction, along with decisions involving removal or transfer restrictions during pending proceedings.

Schedule and Service Requirements

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Respondents’ response is due July 25, 2025. J.M.P.’s reply, if any, is due August 1, 2025.

Within two days of the order, J.M.P.’s counsel must serve the Respondents with the petition, accompanying papers, and the order by overnight mail, then file proof of service. Counsel for the Respondents must promptly file notices of appearance. The order also provides filing and attendance instructions for counsel and procedures for requesting an extension or adjournment.

Disposition

The Court entered the removal and transfer restrictions and set deadlines and service requirements. It did not rule on the merits of J.M.P.’s petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.