Lujun Wang v. Christopher Larose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Court ORDERS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Lujun Wang, a detained non-citizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and requested the appointment of counsel. The Court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., ordered the Petitioner to submit a financial affidavit, and enjoined the removal of the Petitioner from the District to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of 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 civil cases, finding that the complexity of the issues serves the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent. The conditionality regarding financial eligibility is consistent with the CJA requirements. |
Order to submit financial affidavit“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by March 4, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement under the Criminal Justice Act to verify eligibility for appointed counsel. |
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 and prevent irreparable harm by enjoining removal while the habeas petition is pending. This is supported by the cited authorities regarding the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve status quo and jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal basis for appointing counsel in a complex civil habeas case and appropriately uses injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent the mootness of the petition by removing the petitioner from the court's reach. The citations to recent district court orders and Supreme Court precedent support the jurisdictional preservation measure.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUJUN WANG, Case No.: 26-cv-1133-JES-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 Before the Court is Petitioner Lujun Wang’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on February 19, 2026. ECF No. 1. 18 Petitioner entered the United States on February 4, 2023 and alleges to have been released 19 shortly thereafter on recognizance. Id. at 6. Petitioner was re-detained on May 25, 2025, 20 and remains in detention despite having signed a voluntary departure agreement on October 21 4, 2025. Id. Petitioner seeks release and requests counsel. Id. at 7. 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 March 4, 2026, to demonstrate his financial 28 1 || eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 2 Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not 3 || financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent 4 ||him, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this 5 ||Court by March 4, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal 6 || Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later 7 || than March 9, 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 ||has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 13 || the 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 25, 2026 25 Sa— 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28