Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YANDY ERNESTO MACHIN-ROSAL, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02796-RBM-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 2]; and General, et al., 15 Respondents. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 16 SCHEDULE 17 18 19 On May 1, 2026, Petitioner Yandy Ernesto Machin-Rosal (“Petitioner”), proceeding 20 pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) 21 (Doc. 1), a Request for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”) (Doc. 2), 22 and a Motion for Injunctive Relief and Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”) 23 (Doc. 3). 24 I. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 25 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 26 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 27 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 28 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable 1 to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Id. § 3006A(a). “In 2 deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate 3 the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate 4 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 5 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 6 Here, Petitioner attests that he cannot afford an attorney, is not fluent in English, and 7 is unable to litigate his habeas petition without the assistance of counsel. (Doc. 2 at 1–6.) 8 “The Court also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential 9 validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev v. 10 Warden, Case No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing 11 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court 12 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 13 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 15 Clause and the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Doc. 16 1 at 1–3.) The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See 17 Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 18 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 19 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 20 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do 21 not need to identify the constitutional source of the claims raised). 22 Petitioner SHALL FILE an amended petition, through appointed counsel, on or 23 before May 13, 2026. Respondents SHALL RESPOND to the amended petition on or 24 before May 20, 2026. Their Response shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence 25 relevant to the determination of the issues raised, including any relevant documents 26 reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history. Petitioner may file a reply on or before May 27 27, 2026. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall 28 await further order from the Court. l The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the 2 || TRO Motion (Doc. 3), and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal 3 || Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance 4 || on or before May 6, 2026. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATE: May 4, 2026 eet Bearniskr, MA oitttsgyes □ g ON. RUTH BERM@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28