Almas Bayazitov v. Christopher Larose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 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 a detainee and determined that appointed counsel was necessary due to the complexity of the issues. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., set a briefing schedule, and enjoined 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 counsel may be appointed in habeas cases where the issues are complex and potentially valid. The order recites that the court found representation necessary based on the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues. This follows the standard practice in the Ninth Circuit for pro se habeas petitions involving complex legal questions. The condition of financial eligibility via CJA 23 is consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b). |
Injunction against removal of Petitioner from the United States or the District“Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them continue to be 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 provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court issues a status quo injunction to preserve the court's jurisdiction and ability to rule on the merits. This is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas corpus cases to prevent mootness while the petition is pending. The order does not cite specific authority for the injunction but relies on the inherent power of the court to maintain the status quo. |
Setting of briefing schedule“Petitioner may file supplemental briefing... no later than close of business on March 20, 2026. Respondent shall file a response... no later than close of business March 27, 2026. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business April 3, 2026.” | agree with court The court sets reasonable deadlines for the parties to brief the merits of the petition. This is a routine procedural order to manage the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard from Weygandt v. Look for appointing counsel in complex pro se habeas cases. It properly conditions the appointment on financial eligibility under the CJA. The status quo injunction is a standard and appropriate procedural measure to preserve jurisdiction. The briefing schedule is reasonable. The order is procedurally sound and relies on appropriate authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALMAS BAYAZITOV, Case No.: 26-cv-1642-BJC-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et, al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On March 16, 2026, Petitioner Almas Bayazitov, proceeding pro se, filed a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. Upon review of the Petition, 21 the Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity 22 of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 23 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 1. The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, 25 Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. Petitioner shall submit a form CJA 23 26 financial affidavit by March 20, 2026 to demonstrate his financial eligibility. 27 See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. 28 § 3006A(b). 1 2. Petitioner may file supplemental briefing providing any additional information 2 the Court may need to rule on the merits of the petition no later than close of 3 business on March 20, 2026. 4 3. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 5 March 27, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 6 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 7 4. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business April 3, 2026. 8 Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission 9 at that time. 10 5. Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting 11 in active concert or participation with them continue to be ENJOINED from 12 removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order 13 of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned 14 decision to the request at hand. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: March 18, 2026 17 19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28