Jawad Zarif v. Jeremy CASEY
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a habeas corpus case challenging immigration detention. The court granted the IFP motion and set a briefing schedule and hearing date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) granted“Since it is clear petitioner cannot afford the filing fee, his IFP request is granted.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for IFP status, which requires a showing of inability to pay. The petitioner's declaration of $0.00 in wages and no savings satisfies this requirement for the $5 filing fee. |
Briefing schedule and hearing date set“petitioner’s traverse will be due April 22, 2026. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for April 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and set deadlines for the habeas petition, consistent with the adopted Standard Procedures. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling. It correctly identifies the statutory fee requirement and applies the IFP standard based on the petitioner's financial declaration. The citation to Hymas is appropriate context for the necessity of the IFP grant. The scheduling orders are within the court's discretion.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jawad Zarif, Case No.: 26-cv-2150-AGS-MSB 4 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING Petitioner, 5 SCHEDULE AND GRANTING vs. MOTION TO PROCEED IN 6 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 2)
7 Jeremy CASEY, 8 9 Respondent. 10 11 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 12 immigration detention. He also seeks to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as 13 proceeding in forma pauperis. 14 Typically, parties seeking a writ of habeas corpus in a United States district court 15 must pay a $5 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without payment 16 of fees only if the court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. See Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t 17 of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that when an “IFP application is 18 denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid”). 19 Although the filing fee is only $5, petitioner claims to have “0.00” in wages and “no 20 savings.” (ECF 2, at 1–2.) Since it is clear petitioner cannot afford the filing fee, his IFP 21 request is granted. 22 For this petition, the Court adopts the Standard Procedures from Chief Judge Order 23 No. 144. That Order is available on the court's website. So, petitioner’s traverse will be due 24 April 22, 2026. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for April 27, 2026, at 2:00 25 p.m. Respondents’ counsel is responsible for coordinating petitioner’s participation by 26 videoconference or, if that’s unavailable, in person. 27 28 1 Dated: April 8, 2026 3 Hon. rew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28