Haben Mebratu Tesfaslasie v. Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal 2 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 3
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a concurrent motion to appoint counsel. The court granted the motion to appoint counsel conditionally, requiring a financial affidavit, and ordered that the petitioner not be removed from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel granted conditionally“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and hereby 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, which supports appointment in habeas cases where the issues are complex or the petitioner is unable to represent themselves. The conditional nature (requiring a CJA 23 affidavit) is consistent with the CJA requirements for financial eligibility. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the procedural posture. |
Order enjoining removal from district to preserve jurisdiction“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 A.A.R.P. v. Trump to support the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. While the specific authority for a TRO in a habeas context is often derived from the All Writs Act or inherent powers, the cited cases support the proposition that federal courts can enjoin removal to maintain jurisdiction over a pending petition. The reasoning is defensible based on the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the CJA standards for appointing counsel in a habeas case and cites appropriate authority for the injunction to preserve jurisdiction. The reliance on recent district court cases and a Supreme Court case for the injunctive relief is sufficient for a preliminary order. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HABEN MEBRATU TESFASLASIE, Case No.: 26-cv-1983-JES-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 JEREMY CASEY, APPOINT COUNSEL; and 15 Respondent. (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 16 COUNSEL 17 18 [ECF No. 1] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Haben Mebratru Tesfaslasie’s Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on March 27, 2026. ECF 21 No. 1. Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 1. 22 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds that representation will serve the 23 interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 24 Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and hereby 25 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 26 effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial 27 affidavit by April 6, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 28 1 ||3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal 2 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 3 ||appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent him, Federal 4 || Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by April 5 || 6, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to 6 || accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later than April 10, 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 ||4, 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 30, 2026 24 Sa— 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. % United States District Judge 27 28