Saymon Tekeste Abraha v. Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and 5 hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as 6 counsel, effective imm
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to appoint counsel in a habeas corpus petition. The court granted both motions, conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and ordered that the Petitioner not be removed from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“On the motion to proceed IFP, the Court finds that Petitioner has sufficiently established that he does not have the funds to pay the fees associated with filing this action, and thus, GRANTS that motion.” | agree with court The order states that the Petitioner sufficiently established an inability to pay fees, which is the standard requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The decision follows from the recited facts. |
Motion to Appoint Counsel Granted and Counsel Conditionally Appointed“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 applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, finding that the Petitioner cannot afford counsel and that representation serves the interests of justice. This is the correct legal framework for appointing counsel in habeas cases. |
Order Enjoining 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 cites A.A.R.P. v. Trump and other district court orders to support the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. This is a recognized equitable power of federal courts in habeas proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Weygandt standard for appointing counsel and cites appropriate authority for the injunction to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAYMON TEKESTE ABRAHA, Case No.: 26-cv-3711-JES-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 JEREMY CASEY, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 15 Respondent. (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 16 APPOINT COUNSEL; and 17 (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 18 COUNSEL 19 20 [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Saymon Tekeste Abraha’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a motion 23 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion to appoint counsel. ECF Nos. 2, 3. 24 On the motion to proceed IFP, the Court finds that Petitioner has sufficiently 25 established that he does not have the funds to pay the fees associated with filing this action, 26 and thus, GRANTS that motion. ECF No. 2. 27 28 1 Having reviewed the motion to appoint counsel and petition, the Court finds that 2 Petitioner has sufficiently shown that he cannot afford counsel and that representation will 3 serve the interests of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 4 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and 5 hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as 6 counsel, effective immediately. If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines it does 7 not have the capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify 8 Petitioner and file notice with this Court by July 7, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue 9 unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner shall file 10 an amended Petition no later than July 14, 2026. 11 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 12 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 13 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 14 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 15 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 16 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 17 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 18 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 19 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 20 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 21 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 22 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 23 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 2 approval from the court). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: June 29, 2026 6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28