Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHEIKHOU SARR, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02343-RBM-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondent. [Doc. 3];

16 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 17 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. 4]; AND 18 19 (3) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 20 21 22 23 On April 10, 2026, Petitioner Cheikhou Sarr (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ 24 of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) That same day, 25 Petitioner also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or 26 Costs (“IFP Application”) in which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. 27 (Doc. 3.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Application (Doc. 3) and 28 DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 1 I. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 2 Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel requesting “that the Court 3 appoint an [a]ttorney to represent him in this case.” (Doc. 2 at 1.) 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.” 18 7 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable to 8 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 In this case, as Petitioner attested in his IFP Application, Petitioner is detained at the 14 Imperial Regional Detention Facility, is not employed, and has no other sources of income. 15 (Doc. 3 at 1.) Petitioner has therefore sufficiently alleged that he cannot afford to hire 16 counsel. “The Court also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and 17 potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev 18 v. Warden, Case No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) 19 (citing Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954). Accordingly, the Court APPOINTS Federal 20 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 21 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 22 Petitioner claims that he was re-detained despite his prior release on parole and that 23 his immigration detention for over ten months “has become unconstitutionally prolonged” 24 in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 at 5–6.) 25 The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva 26 v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate 27 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 28 patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner MAY file an amended petition on or before April 27, 2026. 2 || Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before May 4, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. 3 to why the Petition, or any amended petition, should not be granted by: (1) filing a 4 written response; (2) filing as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the 5 || determination of the issues raised, including any decisions issued by an immigration judge 6 Petitioner’s immigration proceedings and any relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s 7 ||immigration history; and (3) making a recommendation regarding the need for an 8 ||evidentiary hearing. Petitioner MAY file a reply on or before May 11, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. 9 || The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further 10 || order from the Court. 11 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition 12 ||(Doc. 1) and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal Defenders of 13 || San Diego, Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance on or before 14 || April 22, 2026. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||DATE: April 16, 2026 Fe Barradly, Mitirg D 18 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28