Fawaz Ali v. Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Accordin
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion to appoint counsel. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and conditionally granted the motion to appoint counsel, while also enjoining the removal of the Petitioner from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The order recites that the Petitioner is unemployed and has no funds, satisfying the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
Motion to Appoint Counsel Conditionally Granted“Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel and CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Wegandt v. Look, finding that the complexity of the issues means representation serves the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). |
Enjoining Removal of Petitioner from 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-specific precedent (Doe v. Bondi) to maintain the status quo and preserve subject matter jurisdiction while the habeas petition is pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the IFP standard based on the recited financial facts. It correctly cites Wegandt v. Look for the appointment of counsel in complex habeas matters. The jurisdictional preservation order relies on recent district-specific precedent, which is appropriate for maintaining the status quo in removal cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FAWAZ ALI, Case No.: 26-cv-1565-JES-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 JEREMY CASEY, LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 Respondent. PAUPERIS; and 16 (2) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 17 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 18 [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 19 20 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Fawaz Ali’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), motion to appoint counsel, and motion to 23 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. 24 First, Petitioner’s application to proceed IFP reflects that Petitioner is not employed 25 and does not have money in any accounts. ECF No. 2. The Court finds that Petitioner 26 cannot afford the $5 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to 27 28 1 || proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas 2 || Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 3 Second, considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural 4 |lissues presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests 5 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Wevgandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 6 || 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel 7 |land CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 8 || effective immediately. If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that it does not 9 the capability to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall 10 || notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by Monday, March 23, 2026. If Federal || Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later 12 Wednesday, March 25, 2026. 13 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 14 || not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 15 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 16 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 17 ||has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 18 || the court.’”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 19 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 20 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 21 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 22 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 |! Dated: March 16, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 27 United States District Judge 28