Jemal Wako Bore v. Jeremy Casey, Warden; and The Attorney General of the State of California
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Accordin
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas corpus petition, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion to appoint counsel. It granted the IFP motion, conditionally granted the motion to appoint counsel, and ordered that the petitioner not be removed from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner is unemployed and has no money in accounts, which satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows directly from the stated facts. |
Motion to appoint counsel conditionally granted“Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel and CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, citing the complexity of the issues and the interests of justice. The conditional nature of the appointment (allowing the firm to decline) is a common procedural mechanism in this district. The decision is supported by the cited authority and the stated complexity of the case. |
Order issued to preserve jurisdiction by restraining 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 cites local precedent (Doe v. Bondi and A.M. v. LaRose) to support the proposition that courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction. This is a standard equitable measure in habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the IFP standard based on the petitioner's financial affidavit. It correctly cites Weygandt v. Look for the appointment of counsel in a complex habeas case. The jurisdictional preservation order is supported by recent district court precedent. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these preliminary procedural matters.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEMAL WAKO BORE, Case No.: 26-cv-2286-JES-GC 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden; and THE LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 15 PAUPERIS; and STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 Respondents. (2) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 17 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 18 [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 19 20 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Jemal Wako Bore’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), motion to appoint counsel, and motion to 23 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. 24 First, Petitioner’s application to proceed IFP reflects that Petitioner is not employed 25 and does not have money in any accounts. ECF No. 2. The Court finds that Petitioner 26 cannot afford the $5 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to 27 28 1 || proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas 2 || Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 3 Second, considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural 4 |lissues presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests 5 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Wevgandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 6 || 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel 7 |land CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 8 || effective immediately. If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that it does not 9 the capability to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall 10 || notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by Friday, April 24, 2026. If Federal || Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later 12 Monday, April 27, 2026. 13 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 14 || not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 15 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 16 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 17 ||has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 18 || the court.’”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 19 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 20 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 21 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 22 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: April 14, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 27 United States District Judge 28