Hussain Syed Amjad v. Jeremy Casey, Warden
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal 2 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to appoint counsel in a habeas corpus petition. It granted the motion, conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and ordered the petitioner to remain in the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel granted and counsel conditionally appointed“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 is the controlling Ninth Circuit authority for appointing counsel in habeas cases. The decision to condition the appointment on a financial affidavit is consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe. |
Order enjoining 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 A.A.R.P. v. Trump and district court precedents to assert the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction. This is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for appointing counsel and the procedural requirement for a financial affidavit. It also correctly cites authority for the power to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction. 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 HUSSAIN SYED AMJAD, Case No.: 26-cv-2044-JES-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, APPOINT COUNSEL; and 15 Respondent. (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 16 COUNSEL 17 18 [ECF No. 2] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Hussain Syed Amjad’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on March 30, 2026. ECF No. 1. 21 Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 2. 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 10, 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 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 13, 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: April 2, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28