Alpha Diallo v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Alpha Diallo filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. The court granted the habeas petition and the IFP motion, ordered a bond hearing by June 3, 2026, and denied the motion for counsel as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the habeas petition and ordering a bond hearing“The Court thus GRANTS the petition and orders that petitioner receive such a bond hearing by June 3, 2026.” | agree with court The government conceded that the court should order a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Granting the petition based on the government's concession is procedurally appropriate and consistent with the record recited in the order. |
Granting the motion to proceed in forma pauperis“Because petitioner claims to have “$0” (ECF 2, at 1-2), the IFP request is GRANTED.” | agree with court The petitioner demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee by claiming $0 in assets. The court correctly applied the standard for IFP status in habeas cases. |
Denying the motion for appointment of counsel as moot“the motion for counsel appointment (ECF 3) is denied as moot.” | agree with court The court ordered the case to be closed and the judgment to be issued. Since the case is being closed, the request for counsel is no longer necessary for the pending proceedings, making the denial as moot a logical procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on the government's concession to grant the habeas petition, which is a valid basis for entry of judgment. The IFP grant is supported by the petitioner's declaration of zero assets. The denial of counsel as moot follows logically from the closure of the case. The order cites the relevant statutes and a recent Ninth Circuit case regarding IFP procedures.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Alpha DIALLO, Case No.: 26-cv-3001-AGS-BJW 4 Petitioner,,; ORDER GRANTING HABEAS PETITION (ECF 1) AND ORDERING BOND HEARING 6 || Jeremy CASEY, et al., 7 Respondent. 8 9 Petitioner Alpha Diallo seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 10 || challenging his immigration detention. The government “concedes that this Court should 11 || order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing, where the government would bear the burden 12 || of proof of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger 13 the community or a risk of flight.” (ECF 8, at 1.) The Court thus GRANTS the petition 14 || and orders that petitioner receive such a bond hearing by June 3, 2026. 15 Diallo also moved to proceed in forma pauperis, or without paying the typically 16 required $5 habeas corpus filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); see also Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t 17 || of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that when an “IFP application is 18 || denied altogether, Plaintiff's case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid’’). 19 || Because petitioner claims to have “$0” (ECF 2, at 1-2), the IFP request is GRANTED. 20 All pending deadlines and hearings are vacated, and the motion for counsel 21 appointment (ECF 3) is denied as moot. The Clerk’s Office is directed to issue a judgment 22 || and close this case. 23 ||Dated: May 20, 2026 5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 26 27 28 ]