Valerie Moore v. Los Colinas Detention and Re Entry Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 26 deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for 27 injunctive relief);
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Valerie Moore and ordered the appointment of counsel, set a briefing schedule, and issued a limited stay enjoining the removal of the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), which supports the appointment of counsel in habeas cases involving complex constitutional issues. The order recites that the issues are complex and potentially valid, satisfying the standard for appointment. |
Issuance of a limited stay enjoining removal of Petitioner“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court relies on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cites district court cases (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) that have used this authority to preserve jurisdiction and status quo in immigration-related habeas or injunctive contexts. While the cited cases are from other districts, the legal principle that the All Writs Act permits such interim relief to preserve the court's jurisdiction is well-established. The order provides a reasoned basis (preserving status quo for reasoned decision) consistent with the cited authorities. |
Setting of briefing schedule“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business June 24, 2026.” | agree with court Procedural scheduling orders are within the court's discretion and do not require a specific standard of review or substantive legal analysis beyond the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases by citing the controlling Ninth Circuit authority, Weygandt v. Look. It also correctly identifies the All Writs Act as the source of authority for the limited stay and supports this with recent district court decisions that have applied the same logic in similar immigration-related contexts. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
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 VALERIE MOORE, Case No.: 26-cv-3089-BJC-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 LOS COLINAS DETENTION AND RE APPOINTING COUNSEL ENTRY FACILITY, 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondent. 16 17 On April 1, 2026, Petitioner Valerie Moore filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the petition, this Court 19 deems it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response, and finds that representation 20 is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 21 procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow 23 the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, 24 No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order 25 under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 26 deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for 27 injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 28 1 |}2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the 2 || All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve 3 || the court’s jurisdiction). 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as 6 || counsel effectively immediately. 7 4. Petitioner may file either an amended petition or a status report recommending 8 against appointment no later than close of business on June 17, 2026. 9 5. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 10 ||/business June 24, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 11 |/orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 12 6. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business July 1, 2026. 13 || Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at that 14 || time. 15 7. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 16 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 17 || Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to 18 |} maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at 19 || hand. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: June 10, 2026 22 24 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28