Jose Manuel Pastor-Rosales v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Kinch
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee and conditionally appointed counsel to represent him. The court ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, set a deadline for an amended petition, and enjoined the respondent from removing the petitioner from the district pending the court's ruling.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for the petitioner.“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the CJA standard for appointing counsel in a habeas case where the issues are complex and representation serves the interests of justice. The appointment is properly conditioned on the petitioner's financial eligibility, which is a standard procedural requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. |
Orders the petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit by April 27, 2026.“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Monday, April 27, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order required to determine eligibility for court-appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. The deadline is reasonable and consistent with the immediate effective date of the conditional appointment. |
Enjoins the respondent from removing the petitioner from the district pending the court's ruling.“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 correctly exercised its inherent authority to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo in a habeas case. The cited authorities, including A.A.R.P. v. Trump, support the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction. The order is a standard procedural measure to ensure the court can adjudicate the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the CJA standards for appointing counsel in a habeas case. The court properly conditioned the appointment on financial eligibility and set a reasonable deadline for the affidavit. The injunction to preserve jurisdiction is well-supported by the cited authorities, including the recent Supreme Court decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump. The order is concise and addresses the immediate procedural needs of the case without overreaching.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE MANUEL PASTOR-ROSALES, Case No.: 26-cv-2395-JES-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Manuel Pastor-Rosales’ Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on April 17, 2026. ECF 20 No. 1. Petitioner has been in immigration detention since March 27, 2026, and alleges that 21 he is detained without justification despite significant ties within the country. Id. 22 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 23 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 24 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 26 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 27 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Monday, April 27, 2026, to demonstrate his 28 1 || financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 2 |{1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that 3 Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the 4 ||capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner 5 || and file notice with this Court by Monday, April 27, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue 6 || unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an 7 ||amended Petition no later than Wednesday, April 29, 2026. 8 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 9 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 10 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 11 (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 12 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 13 court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 14 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 15 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 16 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 17 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 18 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 19 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 20 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 21 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 22 approval from the court). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: April 17, 2026 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28