Abdul Nasir Moro v. Jeremy Casey, Warden
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 1 The Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice in this § 2241 2 petition, given the complexity and potential validity of
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an ICE detainee and a motion for appointment of counsel. The court granted the motion for counsel, ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and issued a limited stay enjoining the removal of the petitioner from the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel granted (conditionally)“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel by CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court found that representation serves the interests of justice given the complexity of the issues, which is a standard recognized in the Ninth Circuit for habeas proceedings. The conditional nature of the appointment (contingent on financial eligibility and resources) is a common procedural mechanism to ensure the appointment is practical. |
Limited stay of removal issued under All Writs Act“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: ... 5. Respondent, his agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with him are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.” | agree with court The court cited the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. This is a standard equitable power exercised by district courts to prevent the mootness of habeas petitions due to the removal of the detainee. The citation to E-C-R- v. Noem supports this practice. |
Briefing schedule set and Return ordered“2. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before July 22, 2026.” | agree with court Setting a briefing schedule and ordering a return is a standard procedural step in a § 2241 habeas case to allow the government to respond to the allegations. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture and applies the appropriate legal standards for appointing counsel and issuing a stay. The reliance on Weygandt v. Look for the appointment of counsel is appropriate for a Ninth Circuit district court. The use of the All Writs Act to prevent removal is a well-established practice in immigration habeas cases to prevent mootness. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDUL NASIR MORO, Case No.: 26cv3741-LL-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Abdul Nair Moro, proceeding pro se, is a detainee in the custody of the 18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On June 19 25, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). The same day, he also filed a Motion for Appointment of 21 Counsel. ECF No. 2. 22 Petitioner is a noncitizen who claims that he has been detained since March 2026 23 and is currently detained at Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Pet. at 2. He alleges that 24 his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because he was arrested 25 without notice and an opportunity to contest his detention. Id. at 4. Petitioner also alleges 26 that there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the foreseeable future. Id.at 5. He 27 seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondent to release him or provide a bond 28 hearing. Id. at 8. 1 The Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice in this § 2241 2 petition, given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 3 procedural issues presented. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 4 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for 5 Appointment of Counsel by CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING Federal Defenders of 6 San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. However, if Federal Defenders of San 7 Diego, Inc. determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible to be appointed counsel or 8 that it does not have the resources to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San Diego, 9 Inc. shall notify Petitioner and file notice with the Court on or before July 10, 2026. If that 10 occurs, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. 11 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All 12 Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a 13 reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is 14 removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 15 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their 16 authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration 17 matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). 18 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 19 1. On or before July 15, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended petition. An 20 amended petition will supersede and replace the original petition, so the amended petition 21 must be complete in and of itself without reference to the original petition. 22 2. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not 23 be granted by filing a written Return on or before July 22, 2026. The Return shall include 24 any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and shall 25 26 27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 28 1 address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondent shall serve a 2 || copy of his Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 3 3. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before 4 || July 29, 2026. 5 4. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 6 without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 7 notified otherwise. 8 5. Respondent, his agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 9 || acting in active concert or participation with him are hereby ENJOINED from removing 10 || Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 11 maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 12 6. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 13 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: July 1, 2026 NO 16 DE | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28