Alvaro Matias Grosso v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for reconsideration in a habeas corpus case where the petitioner alleged he was in custody without a bond hearing. The court conditionally appointed counsel, set a briefing schedule, and ordered that the petitioner not be removed from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is effectively addressed by the appointment of counsel and setting of a briefing schedule, rather than a direct grant or denial on the merits at this stage.“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court did not rule on the merits of the reconsideration motion (the bond hearing claim) but instead appointed counsel to handle the complex issues. This is a procedural step to ensure the petitioner has representation to properly brief the issues. |
Appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.“The Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court cited 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look to support the appointment based on the complexity of the issues and the interests of justice. This is a standard application of the Criminal Justice Act provisions for civil habeas cases. |
Ordering Petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit.“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Thursday, May 7, 2006, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) for appointed counsel. Note: The order contains a typo in the date ('May 7, 2006' instead of '2026'), but the intent is clear from the context of the filing date (2026). |
Ordering that Petitioner shall not be removed 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 cited Doe v. Bondi, A.M. v. LaRose, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, and Nguyen v. Scott to support the injunction against removal to preserve jurisdiction. This is a common equitable power exercised by federal courts in immigration detention cases to ensure they can adjudicate the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Criminal Justice Act provisions for appointing counsel in a habeas case and cites appropriate authority for the injunction against removal to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order. The typo in the date (2006 vs 2026) is a minor clerical error that does not affect the legal validity of the order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible bias possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALVARO MATIAS GROSSO, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03593-JES-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Alvaro Matias Grosso’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for 18 Reconsideration. ECF No. 9 (“Mot.”). The Court previously denied Petitioner’s Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 4. In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner alleges 20 that he has been in custody since July 11, 2025, without a bond hearing. Mot. at 1. 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 23 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 25 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 26 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Thursday, May 7, 2006, to demonstrate his 27 financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 28 1 |} 1181-82 (9" Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner 2 not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to 3 ||represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice 4 || with this Court by Thursday, May 7, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. 5 Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended 6 || Petition no later than Friday, May 8, 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 □□□□□□□□ 17 also A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to 18 |/issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] 19 jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, 20 *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner 21 || without approval from the court). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 1, 2026 24 Sa— Sin, 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28