Artur Astafev v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th C
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an emergency habeas petition and a motion to appoint counsel filed by a petitioner's wife as next friend. The court granted the motion to appoint counsel, found the petition not subject to summary dismissal, and ordered the respondents to show cause while enjoining the petitioner's transfer outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel granted“Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the two-part test from Weygandt v. Look (likelihood of success and ability to litigate pro se) and found the petitioner financially eligible under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The court also correctly analyzed next friend standing under Whitmore v. Arkansas and Coal. of Clergy, finding the wife's relationship and the petitioner's lack of access to legal resources sufficient to establish standing. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Order to Show Cause issued“Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before February 5, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition should not be granted” | agree with court The court determined that summary dismissal was unwarranted because the petition did not appear vague, conclusory, or frivolous. This is a standard procedural step in habeas proceedings to allow the government to respond to the allegations. The decision is consistent with standard practice. |
Status quo order (no transfer)“Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling in this matter.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to preserve the status quo and maintain jurisdiction while the petition is pending. This is a common and appropriate measure in habeas cases to prevent mootness or loss of jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant legal standards for next friend standing, appointment of counsel, and the threshold for summary dismissal in a habeas case. It cites appropriate binding authority from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. The reasoning is clear and directly addresses the motions before the court. The status quo order is a standard and appropriate exercise of judicial power to preserve jurisdiction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTUR ASTAFEV, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 2]; CENTER, et al, 15 Respondents. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 16 SCHEDULE 17 18 19 On January 20, 2026, Petitioner Artur Astafev (“Petitioner”), through his wife 20 Anastasiia Astafev, filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1) and a Request for Appointment of Counsel under 22 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 5(f)(1) (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”) 23 (Doc. 2). 24 I. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 25 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 26 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 27 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 18 28 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 1 the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 2 of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 3 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). The 4 appointment of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. See Terrovona v. 5 Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 As a preliminary matter, the Petition and the Motion to Appoint Counsel are both 7 brought by Petitioner’s wife as his “next friend.” (Doc. 1 at 2; see Doc. 2 at 5–7 (declaring 8 that her “husband” provides income).) “‘[N]ext friends’ appear in court on behalf of 9 detained prisoners who are unable, usually because of mental incompetence or 10 inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 11 (1990) (citing United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13, n.3 (1955)). However, 12 “‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue 13 an action on behalf of another.” Id. at 163. To establish standing, a person seeking next 14 friend status “must show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to 15 mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend 16 has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the 17 petitioner.” Coal. of Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th 18 Cir. 2002) (quoting Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001)). 19 In this case, Petitioner’s wife, Anastasiia Astafev, asserts that Petitioner is unable to 20 litigate his own cause “due to restrictions on access to legal resources.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) 21 Additionally, as Petitioner’s wife, Mrs. Astafev has a significant relationship with 22 Petitioner and states she is acting in the interests of Petitioner and their two minor children. 23 (Id.) The Court therefore finds that next friend standing has been sufficiently established. 24 Moreover, Petitioner lacks funds to pay for an attorney because: he is the sole 25 provider for his family, including his minor children ages 8 and 1; his estimated monthly 26 expenses total $2,350; and he has no money in savings or checking accounts. (Doc. 1 at 4, 27 8; Doc. 2 at 4–7.) Thus, Petitioner has sufficiently alleged he cannot afford to hire counsel. 28 The Court also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and 1 potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. 2 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court 3 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.1 4 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 5 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal of the Petition is 6 unwarranted. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) 7 (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 8 conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). 9 Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before February 10 5, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition should not be granted by: (1) filing a written 11 response; (2) filing as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination of 12 the issues raised in the Petition, including any and all relevant documents reflecting 13 Petitioner’s immigration history; and (3) making a recommendation regarding the need for 14 an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner shall file a reply on or before February 13, 2026 at 15 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall 16 await further order from the Court. 17 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner 18 SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling 19 in this matter. See Doe v. Bondi, Case No.: 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *1 20 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo 21 while determining whether [they have] subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a 22 petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases). 23 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition (Doc. 24 25 1 Although Mrs. Astafev was authorized to file the Petition and Motion to Appoint Counsel 26 as Petitioner’s next friend, all future filings must be made by Petitioner’s counsel. See 27 United States v. Caputo, Case: 1:14-CR-00041-JLT-SKO-1, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023) (“[T]he [federal habeas] statute does not authorize the ‘next 28 1 || 1), the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 2), and this Order to the United States Attorney’s 2 Office and to Federal Defenders. Counsel for Petitioners SHALL FILE a notice of 3 || appearance on or before February 4, 2026. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || DATE: January 30, 2026 pA Bormeder Mpitiryy 7 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28