Waad Salam Alkhafaji v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — l If Petitioner has not been removed by May 24, 2026,
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion to appoint counsel in a habeas corpus case where the petitioner was still within the 90-day period of mandatory detention. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the petitioner could not succeed on the merits during the mandatory detention period.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel denied without prejudice“the Court DENIES without prejudice the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 9).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, which requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits. Since the court had previously determined that the petitioner was in a period of mandatory detention where habeas relief is unavailable, the likelihood of success was zero. Denying the motion without prejudice allows the petitioner to refile if the legal status changes (i.e., if the mandatory detention period expires without removal). |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the motion by applying the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt) to the factual finding that the petitioner is in a period of mandatory detention where habeas claims cannot succeed. The reasoning is logically sound and legally sufficient for the decision.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WAAD SALAM ALKHAFAJI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02262-RBM-BJW 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 10 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., 11 Respondents. [Doc. 9] 12 14 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Waad Salam Alkhafaji’s (“Petitioner”) 15 Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (“Motion to Appoint 16 Counsel”). (Doc. 9). For the reasons below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel. 18 On April 28, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), finding that Petitioner was still 20 in the 90-day period of statutorily mandated detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. (Doc. 7 at 21 2–4.) As the Court found in that previous Order, Petitioner’s order of removal became 22 administratively final on February 24, 2026, meaning that he must be detained under 23 § 1231 until May 24, 2026. (Id.) 24 The Court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits” in deciding 25 whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 26 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Because Petitioner cannot succeed on the merits of any 27 habeas claim during his period of mandatory detention, the Court DENIES without 28 prejudice the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 9). l If Petitioner has not been removed by May 24, 2026, he may file an amended Petition 2 ||and an amended Motion to Appoint Counsel. If Petitioner chooses to file an amended 3 || Motion to Appoint Counsel, he shall also include information regarding whether he is able 4 || to afford counsel. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATE: May 12, 2026 eet Bearnidkr, oitttagges □ g ON. RUTH BERMU@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