Truong v. Noem
Tai Truong v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — A court “must evaluate both the likelihood 9 of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pr
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas petition, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a detained petitioner. The court granted the motion for appointment of counsel, ordered respondents to show cause why the petition and TRO should not be granted, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel granted“Therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for appointment of counsel in habeas cases, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Ninth Circuit precedent (Bashor, Rand). The court found that the Federal Defenders of San Diego was ready and able to assist, and that appointment was appropriate. While the order does not explicitly detail the 'interest of justice' analysis (likelihood of success and ability to articulate claims), the citation to the correct standard and the availability of counsel support the decision. |
Order to Show Cause issued regarding Petition and TRO“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 8, 2025.” | agree with court The court did not rule on the merits of the habeas petition or TRO but instead set a procedural schedule for briefing and a hearing. This is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the government to respond to the allegations before a final ruling is made. The court also set a specific date for a hearing, which is appropriate given the urgency of a TRO motion. |
Stay of Petitioner's Removal ordered“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.” | agree with court The court cited recent district court cases (Doe v. Bondi, A.M. v. LaRose, Nguyen v. Scott) and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) to support its authority to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction is legally sound. The stay is limited to the district and pending the court's ruling, which is a reasonable interim measure. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standards for appointment of counsel in habeas cases. It appropriately uses an Order to Show Cause to manage the briefing schedule for the habeas petition and TRO. The stay of removal is supported by recent case law and the court's inherent power to preserve its jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural actions taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAI TRUONG Case No.: 25-cv-2597-JES-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S 14 KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY OF THE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 ATTORNEY GENERAL; TODD PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF 17 CORPUS; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 18 ENFORECEMENT; JESUS ROCHA, (3) SETTING BRIEFING ACTING FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 19 SCHEDULE AND MOTION SAN DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, HEARING; and 20 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, WARDEN OF OTAY MESA DETENTION 21 (4) STAYING REMOVAL OF CENTER, PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 22 Respondents. JURISDICTION 23 24 [ECF No. 1-3] 25 26 Before the Court are Petitioner Tai Truong’s (“Petitioner”): (1) Petition for Writ of 27 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”); (2) Motion for Appointment of 28 Counsel (“Motion”); and (3) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF 1 Nos. 1-3. The Petition and both motions were filed on October 1, 2025. Id. The Court 2 addresses each filing below. 3 1. Appointment of Counsel 4 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). 5 Motion at 1-2. Under this statute, the district court may appoint counsel for an 6 impoverished habeas petitioner seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when “the court 7 determines that the interest of justice so require …” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 8 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)). A court “must evaluate both the likelihood 9 of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in 10 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th 11 Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). 12 The Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., is ready and able to assist Petitioner in 13 this matter. Id. at 2. Having carefully considered the arguments raised in the Motion, the 14 Court finds that appointment of counsel is appropriate. Therefore, the Court GRANTS 15 Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 16 San Diego, Inc. to represent him. 17 2. The Petition and TRO 18 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 19 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20 8, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 21 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 22 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 23 Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 24 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 9, 2025. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to 25 Show Cause Hearing for Friday, October 10, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 3. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 2 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 3 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 4 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 5 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 6 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 7 || the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 8 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 9 ||hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 10 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 11 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this □□□□□□□□ 12 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 13 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 14 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 15 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 16 || approval from the court). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: October 3, 2025 19 □□□ Sir, 20 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28