Hermon Tekali Zeray v. Warden Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially u
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion to appoint counsel. The court granted the in forma pauperis application, conditionally appointed counsel, and set a briefing schedule for the parties to respond to the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner attested to an inability to pay the filing fee, which satisfies the statutory requirement for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows directly from the stated facts. |
Conditionally Appointing Counsel“Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, evaluating the petitioner's financial eligibility, inability to litigate pro se due to language barriers, and the complexity of the issues. The decision is supported by the cited Ninth Circuit authority and the specific facts of the case. |
Denying Summary Dismissal and Setting Briefing Schedule“The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted.” | agree with court The court determined that the petition did not meet the high bar for summary dismissal (vague, conclusory, or frivolous) and cited authority for the liberal construction of pro se pleadings. The decision to allow the case to proceed to a response is consistent with the cited standards. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant statutory and case law standards for in forma pauperis status, appointment of counsel, and the threshold for summary dismissal. 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 HERMON TEKALI ZERAY, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02344-RBM-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondent. [Doc. 2];
16 (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 17 APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 3]; and 18 (3) SETTING BRIEFING 19 SCHEDULE 20 21 22 On April 10, 2026, Petitioner Hermon Tekali Zeray (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro 23 se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1), 24 an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs 25 (“IFP Motion”) (Doc. 2), and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3). 26 In the IFP Motion, Petitioner attests that he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. 27 (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion. The Clerk of 28 the Court shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 1 I. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 2 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 3 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 4 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 5 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable 6 to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Id. § 3006A(a). “In 7 deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate 8 the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate 9 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 10 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 11 Here, Petitioner represents that he cannot afford an attorney, is not fluent in English, 12 and is unable to litigate his habeas petition without the assistance of counsel. (Doc. 3 at 13 1.) “The Court also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and 14 potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev 15 v. Warden, Case No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) 16 (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court 17 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 18 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 19 The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva 20 v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate 21 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 22 patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th 23 Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do not need to identify 24 the constitutional source of the claims raised). 25 Petitioner may file an amended petition on or before April 24, 2026. Respondent 26 SHALL RESPOND to the amended petition on or before May 1, 2026. Their Response 27 shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the 28 issues raised, including any relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history. | || Petitioner may file a reply on or before May 8, 2026. The matter will be deemed under 2 ||submission at that time and the Parties shall await further order from the Court. 3 The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and 4 ||this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal Defenders of San Diego, 5 ||Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance on or before April 20, 6 ||2026. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||DATE: April 16, 2026 et Besrnidkr, Moines D 10 ON. RUTH BERMU@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28