Constantino Salazar-Rubio v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal 2 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 3 |
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel in a § 2241 habeas corpus case. The court granted the motion, conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and ordered the Petitioner to remain in the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'interests of justice' standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases, citing the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt v. Look) and statutory authority (18 U.S.C. § 3006A). The decision to make the appointment conditional upon financial eligibility is consistent with Ninth Circuit procedure (Terrovona v. Kincheloe). |
Order to preserve jurisdiction (restraining 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.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it has the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve its jurisdiction over a pending habeas petition. The citation to A.A.R.P v. Trump (2025) supports the general power to issue injunctions to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction, and the district court precedents cited are consistent with this practice in immigration/habeas contexts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases and appropriately uses injunctive authority to preserve jurisdiction. The citations are relevant and support the specific actions taken (appointment of counsel and restraining removal).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSTANTINO SALAZAR-RUBIO, Case No.: 26-cv-3311-JES-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL APPOINT COUNSEL; and DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 16 COUNSEL 17 18 [ECF No. 2] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Constantino Salazar-Rubio’s Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on May 29, 2026. ECF No. 21 1. Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 2. 22 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds that representation will serve the 23 interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 24 Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and hereby 25 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 26 effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial 27 affidavit by June 10, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 28 1 ||3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal 2 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 3 ||appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent him, Federal 4 || Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by June 5 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to 6 || accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later than June 17, 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 ||4, 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 Court’); 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: June 3, 2026 24 Sa— 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. % United States District Judge 27 28