Pun Magar Sandesh v. Christopher Larose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Kinch
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee alleging detention without a bond hearing. The court conditionally appointed counsel, ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, and enjoined the government from removing the petitioner from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt v. Look) which supports appointment when the complexity of the issues warrants it. The conditionality regarding financial eligibility is consistent with the CJA. |
Order to file financial affidavit“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Thursday, February 19, 2026, to demonstrate financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement under the Criminal Justice Act for appointing counsel, ensuring the petitioner meets the financial criteria for free representation. |
Injunction against removal from the district“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 correctly identified the need to preserve jurisdiction over the habeas petitioner. It cited A.A.R.P. v. Trump (2025) and district court precedents to support the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction. This is a standard and appropriate measure in habeas cases involving detained individuals. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the need for counsel based on the complexity of the habeas petition, follows the proper CJA procedures for financial eligibility, and appropriately uses injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction over the detained petitioner. The citations to Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority are relevant and correctly applied.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PUN MAGAR SANDESH, Case No.: 26-cv-0846-JES-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Pun Magar Sandesh’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on February 9, 2026. ECF No. 1. 20 Petitioner has been in immigration detention since December 7, 2024, and alleges that he 21 is detained without adequate justification and without a bond hearing. Id. at 6. 22 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 23 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 24 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 26 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 27 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Thursday, February 19, 2026, to demonstrate 28 1 financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 2 |{1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that 3 Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the 4 ||capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner 5 file notice with this Court by Thursday, February 19, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 6 || continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 7 ||may file an amended Petition no later than Friday, February 20, 2026. 8 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 9 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 10 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 11 (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 12 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 13 court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 14 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 15 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 16 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 17 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 18 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 19 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 20 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 21 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 22 approval from the court). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: February 13, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28