Ayush Thakur v. Jeremy Casey
- 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 pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Ayush Thakur under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the respondent from removing the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Appointment of 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 establishes that appointment of counsel is appropriate in habeas cases where the issues are complex and the petitioner has a potentially valid claim. The order recites that the court found the issues complex and potentially valid. This follows the standard legal framework for appointment of counsel in this context. |
Briefing Schedule“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business June 24, 2026. ... Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business July 1, 2026.” | agree with court Setting a briefing schedule is a routine procedural matter within the court's discretion. The deadlines set are reasonable and allow time for the newly appointed counsel to review the case. |
Injunction / Stay“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 two district court cases (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) to support the issuance of a limited stay to preserve the status quo. While the cited cases are from other districts and not binding, the use of the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction in habeas cases is a well-established practice. The order explicitly states the purpose is to maintain the status quo to allow for a reasoned decision, which is a valid exercise of the court's inherent authority and statutory power under § 1651. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for appointment of counsel in habeas cases by citing the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt). The use of the All Writs Act to issue a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism in habeas litigation, particularly when the petitioner's removal would moot the case. The court cites persuasive authority from other districts to support this specific application, which is acceptable given the routine nature of the order. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this type.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AYUSH THAKUR, Case No.: 26-cv-3315-BJC-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 JEREMY CASEY, APPOINTING COUNSEL 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 On May 1, 2026, Petitioner Ayush Thakur 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