Luis Alejandro Muller-Pluviose v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — determines that 4 Pe
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee in ICE custody. It conditionally appointed counsel, set a briefing schedule, and issued a limited stay enjoining the government from removing the petitioner from the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditionally appoint Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look, which support the appointment of counsel in habeas cases where the interests of justice so require. The order recites that the issues are complex and potentially valid, satisfying the statutory standard. The condition regarding financial eligibility is consistent with the statute. |
Order a limited stay under the All Writs Act to preserve the status quo“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: ... 5. Respondent, his 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, maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.” | agree with court The court cites 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and E-C-R- v. Noem to support the use of the All Writs Act to maintain jurisdiction over immigration matters by preserving the status quo. This is a recognized practice in federal courts to prevent removal from the district which would divest the court of jurisdiction or complicate the habeas proceeding. |
Set briefing schedule for amended petition, return, and traverse“1. On or before March 30, 2026, Petitioner shall file an amended petition... 2. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before April 6, 2026... 3. Petitioner may, but is not required, to reply to the Return by filing a Traverse or before April 13, 2026.” | agree with court The court exercises its inherent case management authority to set deadlines for the parties to present their arguments. Requiring an amended petition to specify the legal basis for the claim is standard practice to ensure the court has a clear record to review. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory authority for appointing counsel and the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order. It cites the relevant statutes and a recent district court case to support the stay, which is appropriate for this type of interim measure.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS ALEJANDRO MULLER- Case No.: 26cv1442-LL-BLM PLUVIOSE, 12 ORDER CONDITIONALLY Petitioner, 13 APPOINTING COUNSEL AND v. SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 15 CENTER, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner Luis Alejandro Muller-Pluviose, proceeding pro se, is a detainee in the 19 custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 20 Enforcement. On March 6, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 21 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). He seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondent 22 to release him. Id. at 2. 23 The Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice in this § 2241 24 petition, given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 25 procedural issues presented. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 26 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal 27 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. The Court ORDERS 28 1 Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by March 23, 2026 to demonstrate 2 his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 3 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). However, if Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. determines that 4 Petitioner is not financially eligible to be appointed counsel or that it does not have the 5 resources to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. shall notify 6 Petitioner and file notice with the Court on or before March 19, 2026. If that occurs, 7 Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. 8 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All 9 Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a 10 reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is 11 removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 12 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their 13 authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration 14 matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). 15 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 16 1. On or before March 30, 2026, Petitioner shall file an amended petition that 17 names the respondent and alleges which constitutional rights, laws, or treaties of the United 18 States have been violated by his detention. An amended petition will supersede and replace 19 the original petition, so the amended petition must be complete in and of itself without 20 reference to the original petition. 21 2. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not 22 be granted by filing a written Return on or before April 6, 2026. The Return shall include 23 any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and shall 24 25 26 27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 28 1 |}address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondent shall serve a 2 || copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 3 3. Petitioner may, but is not required, to reply to the Return by filing a Traverse 4 or before April 13, 2026. 5 4. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 6 without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 7 notified otherwise. 8 5. Respondent, his agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 9 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 10 || Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 11 maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 12 6. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 13 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 11, 2026 NO 16 DE | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28