Henrry Amaya-Ingles v. Kristi Noem, in her Official Capacity, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detained non-citizen, along with motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. The court granted both motions, appointed the Federal Defenders of San Diego, and set a briefing schedule for the respondents to answer the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis granted“Accordingly, Petitioner’s IFP Motion (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The petitioner attested to an inability to pay the filing fee, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows directly from the record recited in the order. |
Motion for Appointment of Counsel granted“Accordingly, the Court APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.” | agree with court The court applied the correct statutory standard (18 U.S.C. § 3006A) and the Ninth Circuit's *Weygandt* factors (likelihood of success and ability to litigate pro se). The petitioner alleged financial inability to hire counsel and the court found the issues complex. This is a discretionary determination that appears reasonable on the face of the order. |
Order to Show Cause / Briefing Schedule set“Respondents SHALL RESPOND to the Petition, or any amended petition, on or before April 29, 2026 at 4:30 p.m.” | agree with court The court determined that summary dismissal was unwarranted because the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. This is a procedural ruling to allow the case to proceed to a full response, which is consistent with the standard for screening habeas petitions. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory and case law standards for IFP status, appointment of counsel, and screening of habeas petitions. It applies these standards to the specific facts alleged by the petitioner (poverty, detention, complexity of constitutional issues). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order at the filing stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRRY AMAYA-INGLES, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02223-RBM-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 KRISTI NOEM, in her Official Capacity, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Secretary of the Department of Homeland 15 [Doc. 2]; Security, et al., 16 Respondents. (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 17 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. 3]; AND 18 19 (3) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 20 21 22 23 On April 8, 2026, Petitioner Henrry Amaya-Ingles (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for 24 Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) That same 25 day, Petitioner filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”) in which he 26 attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, 27 Petitioner’s IFP Motion (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the Petition without 28 prepayment of the filing fee. 1 I. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 2 Along with the Petition and IFP Motion, Petitioner also filed a Motion for 3 Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 3.) 4 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 5 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 6 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 7 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable 8 to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Id. § 3006A(a). “In 9 deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate 10 the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate 11 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 12 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 13 Here, Petitioner claims that he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings 14 “because of [his] poverty and the underlying fact that [he is] physically detained in 15 custody” since 2024 “without [a] job, employment, or cash in hand.” (Doc. 3 at 2–3.) 16 Petitioner has therefore sufficiently alleged that he cannot afford to hire counsel. “The 17 Court also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity 18 of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev v. Warden, Case 19 No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing Weygandt v. 20 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court APPOINTS Federal 21 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 22 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 23 In the Petition, Petitioner claims his immigration detention for over one year has 24 become unconstitutionally prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 25 Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 40–79.) The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is 26 unwarranted. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) 27 (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 28 conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). 1 Accordingly, Petitioner may file an amended petition on or before April 22, 2026. 2 ||Respondents SHALL RESPOND to the Petition, or any amended petition, on or before 3 || April 29, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The Response shall: (1) include as exhibits all documents or 4 |jevidence relevant to the determination of the issues raised, including any relevant 5 ||documents reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history; and (2) make a recommendation 6 || regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner may file a reply on or before May 7 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the 8 || Parties shall await further order from the Court. 9 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition 10 ||(Doc. 1) and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal Defenders of 11 Diego, Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance on or before 12 || April 17, 2026. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ||}DATE: April 13, 2026 RA Barney, Margy 16 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28