Esmatullah Sulimankhel v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal 28 1 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 2 ||appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to repres
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a pro se petitioner and granted the motion to appoint counsel. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, and enjoined the respondents from removing the petitioner from the district pending the court's ruling.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel granted“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, a Ninth Circuit case establishing that appointment of counsel in habeas cases is appropriate when the interests of justice so require. The decision follows from the cited authority and the procedural posture of a pro se habeas petition. |
Petitioner ordered to submit financial affidavit“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by April 10, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court The court cited 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe, which supports the requirement for financial eligibility determinations in the context of appointed counsel. The order is consistent with the statutory framework for Criminal Justice Act appointments. |
Petitioner enjoined from removal 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 cited A.A.R.P. v. Trump (a 2025 Supreme Court case) and several district court orders to support the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. The reasoning aligns with the general equitable powers of federal courts to preserve the status quo in pending litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the 'interests of justice' standard for appointing counsel in a habeas case, cites appropriate statutory and case law for the financial eligibility requirement, and relies on recent Supreme Court authority to support the injunction preserving jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural relief granted.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESMATULLAH SULIMANKHEL, Case No.: 26-cv-2042-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., APPOINT COUNSEL; and 15 Respondents. (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 16 COUNSEL 17 18 [ECF No. 1] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Esmatullah Sulimankhel’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 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds that representation will serve the 22 interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 23 Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and hereby 24 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 25 effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial 26 affidavit by April 10, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 27 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal 28 1 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 2 ||appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent him, Federal 3 || Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by April 4 ||10, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to 5 || accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later than April 17, 2026. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 16 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 || approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: April 3, 2026 23 Sa— 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28