Qibao Lin v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an individual in immigration detention with a pending asylum application. The court conditionally appointed counsel, set a briefing schedule, and issued a limited injunction prohibiting the removal of the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look for the proposition that representation is necessary given the complexity of the issues. The order requires the petitioner to submit a financial affidavit to demonstrate eligibility, which is consistent with the CJA requirements cited. The decision follows from the cited authority and the recited facts regarding the complexity of the constitutional and statutory issues. |
Injunction against removal of Petitioner from the United States or the District“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to hold a hearing and provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court relies on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cites district court precedents (E-C-R- v. Noem and A.M. v. Larose) to support the issuance of a limited stay to preserve the status quo and jurisdiction. The order explicitly states the purpose is to allow the court to hold a hearing and provide a reasoned decision. This is a standard preliminary measure in habeas cases involving immigration detention to prevent mootness. |
Setting of briefing schedule“Respondents shall file a response to the writ of habeas corpus no later than close of business on March 9, 2026. Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on March 16, 2026.” | agree with court The court sets specific deadlines for the response and reply. This is a procedural matter within the court's discretion to manage the docket. The dates are reasonable relative to the filing date of March 2, 2026. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the need for a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo in a habeas case involving immigration detention, citing the All Writs Act and relevant district court precedents. The appointment of counsel is supported by Ninth Circuit precedent and statutory requirements. The briefing schedule is reasonable. The order is concise and directly addresses the immediate procedural needs of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 QIBAO LIN, Case No.: 26-cv-1280-BJC-DEB 10 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON THE WRIT AND 11 v. PROHIBITING TRANSFER OF 12 Kristi NOEM, Secretary, Department of PETITIONER Homeland Security, et al.; 13 Respondents. 14 [ECF No. 1,2]
15 On February 19, 2026, Qibao Lin (“Petitioner”), appearing pro se, filed a petition 16 for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. Petitioner was taken into immigration custody on 17 December 3, 2024, and has remained detained since that date. Id. at 6. Petitioner has a 18 pending application for asylum before the immigration court. Id. An individual merits 19 hearing in Petitioner’s removal proceedings is currently scheduled for April 2026. Id. 20 The Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the 21 Court to hold the hearing and provide a reasoned decision on the pending motion. See E- 22 C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) 23 (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, 24 detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s 25 motion for injunctive relief); A.M. v. Larose et al, No. 3:25-CV-1412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. 26 Cal. June 4, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the 27 plaintiffs from the Southern District of California to preserve the court’s jurisdiction). 28 | || Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and 3 potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, 4 the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San 5 Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by March 16, 2026 to 6 demonstrate his financial eligibility. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 7 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b). 8 2. Respondents shall file a response to the writ of habeas corpus 9 no later than close of business on March 9, 2026. 10 3. Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on March 16, 2026. 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 12 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED B from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to hold 14 a hearing and provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: March 2, 2026 17 18 19 20 (2h a 1 22 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28