Stephan Rytov v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal Defenders of San Dieg
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a request for appointed counsel. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel, ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, and enjoined the respondent from removing the petitioner from the district pending the court's ruling.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for appointment of 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) to a habeas petition. While the CJA technically applies to criminal proceedings, federal courts routinely apply its standards to civil habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to ensure fair adjudication of complex constitutional claims. The conditional nature of the appointment, requiring a financial affidavit, is consistent with CJA requirements for indigency. The reliance on Weygandt v. Look supports the proposition that counsel may be appointed in habeas cases where the issues are complex. |
Order to submit financial affidavit“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, May 22, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 1 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990).” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement under the CJA to verify indigency before finalizing the appointment of counsel. The citation to Terovolas v. Kincheloe supports the requirement for financial verification in the context of appointed counsel. |
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. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)... A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 2025)... see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025)... Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025).” | agree with court The court issued an injunction to preserve jurisdiction over the habeas petitioner. This is a common practice in § 2241 cases to prevent the petitioner from being transferred out of the court's jurisdiction before the petition is resolved. The court cited recent district court orders and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) to support its power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is consistent with the need to maintain subject matter jurisdiction over the person or the custody issue. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the CJA standards for appointing counsel in a complex habeas case and uses appropriate injunctive authority to preserve jurisdiction. The citations are relevant and support the specific actions taken. The conditional nature of the appointment and the deadline for the financial affidavit are standard and appropriate. The injunction against removal is a well-established practice in § 2241 cases to prevent mootness or loss of jurisdiction.
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 STEPHAN RYTOV, Case No.: 26-cv-2954-JES-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Stephan Rytov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on May 11, 2026. ECF No. 1. In the 20 Petition, Petitioner also requested that he be appointed counsel. See id. 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 22, 2026, 27 to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas 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 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 22, 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 26, 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 || has 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 || 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: May 15, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 6 United States District Judge 27 28