Jerry Osazee Osaretin v. Christopher LaRose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 2 ||determines it does not have the capability to represent him, Federa
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel in a § 2241 habeas corpus case. The court granted the motion, conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and enjoined the removal of the Petitioner from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court found that the Petitioner demonstrated an inability to afford counsel and that appointment served the interests of justice, which aligns with the statutory and case law standards cited for habeas proceedings. |
Injunction Against Removal from 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 the principle that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction and while a petition is pending, citing recent district court orders and Supreme Court authority regarding injunctive relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases and cites appropriate authority for the injunction to preserve jurisdiction. The reliance on recent district court orders and Supreme Court precedent provides a solid basis for the procedural orders.
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 JERRY OSAZEE OSARETIN, Case No.: 26-cv-1508-JES-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 CHRISTOPHER LaROSE, APPOINT COUNSEL; and 15 Respondent. (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 16 COUNSEL 17 18 [ECF No. 1] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Jerry Osazee Osaretin’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1. On March 12, 2026, the 21 Court screened the petition. ECF No. 2. On April 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion to 22 Appoint Counsel, which appears to include in it an amended petition as well. ECF No. 3. 23 Having reviewed the motion to appoint counsel and amended petition, the Court 24 finds that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that he cannot afford counsel and that 25 representation will serve the interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. 26 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to 27 appoint counsel and hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San 28 1 || Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 2 ||determines it does not have the capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San 3 || Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by May 7, 2026. If so, 4 ||Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept 5 representation, Petitioner shall file an amended Petition no later than May 14, 2026. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 16 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 || approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: April 30, 2026 23 Sa— 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28