Sherpa v. Almodovar
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-09082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pema Sherpa v. Judith Almodovar, Judge Engelmayer ordered a response to Sherpa’s petition and barred removal while it is pending.
Pema Sherpa, the respondents, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. The order prevents Sherpa’s removal from the United States unless the court later orders otherwise and sets deadlines for the government’s response and Sherpa’s reply.
What happened
Pema Sherpa v. Judith Almodovar et al. concerns a petition that Sherpa filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not decide the petition’s underlying claims.
The court directed the Clerk to notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. That office must file an answer or other response within 60 days, and Sherpa may file a reply within 30 days after receiving the response. The court also ordered that Sherpa not be removed from the United States unless the court later orders otherwise.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the order to preserve the court’s jurisdiction while it considers the petition. This order is procedural and does not resolve whether Sherpa is entitled to the requested relief.
The detailed version
- Sherpa v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-09082
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
Pema Sherpa filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the petition’s specific claims or the relief Sherpa seeks beyond referring to the petition.
Court’s Orders
The court directed the Clerk of Court to electronically notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the order had been issued. The U.S. Attorney’s Office must file an answer or other pleadings responding to the petition within 60 days of the order’s date. Sherpa may file reply papers within 30 days after being served with the respondents’ answer.
The court also ordered that Sherpa not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. It explained that this restriction was intended to preserve the court’s jurisdiction while the petition is pending. The opinion cites the federal All Writs Act and several decisions concerning temporary restrictions on removal for that purpose.
Disposition and Significance
The court did not grant or deny the petition on its merits. Instead, it ordered the respondents to respond and temporarily prohibited Sherpa’s removal while the court considers the petition. This is a procedural order, not a final decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.