Manouk Baghdasaryan v. Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary of DHS; Tod Lyons, Director of ICE; and Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 2 || (9
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a detained petitioner. The court granted the motion to appoint counsel conditionally and issued an order restraining the removal of the petitioner from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel granted conditionally“Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the 'interests of justice' standard under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and cited Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983), which supports appointment in complex habeas cases. The condition requiring a financial affidavit is consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176 (9th Cir. 1990). The decision follows from the cited authorities and the recited complexity of the issues. |
Order issued restraining removal of petitioner 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 relied on district court precedents (Doe v. Bondi, A.M. v. LaRose) and the Supreme Court case A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91 (2025), to justify preserving jurisdiction by maintaining the status quo. While the order does not explicitly grant a TRO in the traditional sense, it imposes a restraint on removal to preserve jurisdiction, which is a recognized equitable power. The reasoning is supported by the cited authorities regarding the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the 'interests of justice' standard for appointing counsel in a complex habeas case, citing the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent. It also correctly identifies the court's equitable power to preserve jurisdiction by restraining removal, citing recent Supreme Court and district court authority. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANOUK BAGHDASARYAN, Case No.: 26-cv-1576-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. GRANTING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of 15 DHS; TOD LYONS, Director of ICE; and [ECF No. 2] 16 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, 17 Respondents. 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Manouk Baghdasaryan’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), motion to appoint counsel, and motion 20 for a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. 21 Considering the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, 22 and procedural issues presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve 23 the interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 24 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for 25 appointment of counsel and CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San 26 Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a 27 form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Monday, March 23, 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 || (9th 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 Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this 5 || Court by Monday, March 23, 2026. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, 6 || Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later than Wednesday, March 25, 2026. 7 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 8 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 9 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 10 || (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 11 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 12 || the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 13 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 14 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 15 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 16 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 17 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 18 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 19 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 20 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 21 || approval from the court). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March 16, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28