Mohamed Tchatchibara v. Warden Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 2 det
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion to appoint counsel. It conditionally granted the motion to appoint counsel and ordered the petitioner to remain in the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel granted conditionally“the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice and GRANTS the motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the 'interests of justice' standard under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) and cited the correct Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt) for the proposition that courts have discretion to appoint counsel in civil cases. The conditional nature of the appointment, requiring a financial affidavit, is consistent with CJA requirements for indigency. The decision follows from the law and the recited complexity of the issues. |
Order 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 relied on district court precedents and a recent Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) to justify an injunction preventing the removal of the petitioner. While the specific legal basis for a habeas petitioner's presence in the district is often tied to the exhaustion of remedies or the nature of the custody, the court's reliance on the power to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm is a defensible procedural mechanism in the context of a pending § 2241 petition, particularly given the recent Supreme Court guidance on injunctive relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the CJA standards for appointing counsel in a civil case and cites appropriate authority for the court's inherent power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMED TCHATCHIBARA, Case No.: 26-cv-2445-JES-GC 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY, [ECF No. 2] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Mohamed Tchatchibara’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on April 16, 2026. ECF No. 1. 20 Petitioner also moved to appoint counsel the same day. ECF No. 2. 21 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 22 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice 23 and GRANTS the motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 24 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS 25 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court 26 ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, May 1, 2026, 27 to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 28 1 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 2 determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does 3 ||not have the capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify 4 || Petitioner and file notice with this Court by Friday, May 1, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 5 ||continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 6 || may file an amended Petition no later than Monday, May 4, 2026. 7 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 8 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 9 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 10 || (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 11 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 12 || the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 13 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 14 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 15 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 16 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 17 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 18 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 19 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 20 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 21 || approval from the court). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: April 21, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28