GEBREMARIAM SOLOMON BRHANE v. KRISTI NOEM, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 25 (ECF No.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro se petitioner Gebremariam Solomon Brhane, represented by appointed counsel. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily, ordered the government to respond, and set a hearing date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Confirmation of appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for Petitioner.“Accordingly, the Court confirms appointment of Federal Defenders as counsel for Petitioner.” | agree with court The order recites that the court referred the matter to Federal Defenders for consideration of appointment, and Federal Defenders filed the Amended Petition. Confirming the appointment is a procedural step consistent with the referral and the filing of the petition by the organization. |
Denial of summary dismissal of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.“Having reviewed the Amended Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applies the standard from Kourteva v. INS, stating that summary dismissal is appropriate only where allegations are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The court finds these conditions are not met. While the order does not detail the specific allegations, the application of the cited standard to deny summary dismissal is procedurally correct for a habeas petition that has been amended by counsel. |
Ordering the Government to file a response to the Amended Petition.“The Government must file a response to the Amended Petition no later than February 19, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order in habeas cases where the petition is not dismissed on its face. It allows the respondent to address the merits and provide relevant documents. |
Setting a hearing on the Amended Petition.“The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on March 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on the Amended Petition.” | agree with court Setting a hearing is a discretionary procedural step to resolve the habeas petition after the response and reply are filed. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture (pro se petition, referral to counsel, amended petition filed). It applies the correct legal standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition by citing Kourteva v. INS. The conclusion that summary dismissal is unwarranted is supported by the finding that the petition does not meet the high bar for summary dismissal. The subsequent orders for response, reply, and hearing are standard and appropriate. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEBREMARIAM SOLOMON Case No. 26-cv-00349-BAS-MSB BRHANE, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 14 GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 TO AMENDED PETITION Respondents. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 16 CORPUS (ECF No. 6); AND 17 (2) SETTING HEARING ON 18 AMENDED PETITION 19 20 21 Petitioner Gebremariam Solomon Brhane filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to 23 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., for consideration of appointment of counsel. (ECF 24 No. 2.) Federal Defenders responded by filing an Amended Petition on February 12, 2026. 25 (ECF No. 6.) Accordingly, the Court confirms appointment of Federal Defenders as 26 counsel for Petitioner. 27 Having reviewed the Amended Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is 28 unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 1 ||2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 2 || vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the 3 || Court will order the Government to respond to the Amended Petition and set a hearing. 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 5 l. The Government must file a response to the Amended Petition no later than 6 February 19, 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the 7 || Amended Petition and must include any documents relevant to the determination of the 8 ||issues raised in the Amended Petition. 9 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Amended Petition no later than 10 || February 26, 2026. 11 3. The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on March 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 12 || for a hearing on the Amended Petition. 13 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 14 || Office with a copy of the Amended Petition (ECF No. 6) and this Order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || DATED: February 12, 2026 yatta Bahar 18 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 19 United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_