Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JEAN JACKSON ST. JUSTE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW 10 Petitioner, ORDER: 11 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 12 PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, et APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 2]; al., 13 AND Respondents. 14 (2) SETTING BRIEFING 15 SCHEDULE 16 17 18 On February 17, 2026, Petitioner Jean Jackson St. Juste (“Petitioner”), proceeding 19 pro se, filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”). 20 (Doc. 2.) On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining 22 Order (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 3). Construing the Petition liberally, as the Court must, see 23 United States v. Jackson, 21 F.4th 1205, 1216 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court finds that 24 Petitioner appears to argue that his detention is illegal because (1) it has become 25 unreasonably prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and 26 (2) there is no significant likelihood of his removal to Haiti in the reasonably foreseeable 27 future in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 28 (2001). (See Doc. 1 at 1–2.) 1 I. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 2 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 3 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 4 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 5 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable 6 to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Id. § 3006A(a). “In 7 deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate 8 the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate 9 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 10 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 11 Here, Petitioner lists his previous income and current assets and represents that he 12 does “not have the money to hire an attorney.” (Doc. 2 at 2–6.) He has therefore 13 sufficiently alleged that he cannot afford to hire counsel. He also represents that he is 14 unable to litigate his Petition because Otay Mesa Detention Center’s “Law Library has 15 limited legal information regarding the process of a habeas corpus.” (Id. at 5.) “The Court 16 also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of 17 the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev v. Warden, Case 18 No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing Weygandt v. 19 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY 20 APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 21 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 22 The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva 23 v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate 24 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 25 patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th 26 Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do not need to identify 27 the constitutional source of the claims raised). 28 1 Accordingly, Petitioner may file an amended petition on or before March 2, 2026. 2 Respondents SHALL RESPOND to the amended petition on or before Mach 9, 2026. 3 ||Their Response shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the 4 || determination of the issues raised, including any relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s 5 ||immigration history. Petitioner may file a reply on or before March 13, 2026. The matter 6 || will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further order from 7 || the Court. 8 The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the 9 || TRO Motion (Doc. 3), and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal 10 || Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance 11 or before February 26, 2026. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||DATE: February 23, 2026 ep Barris, MM oitttryges D 15 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28