Juan Omar Ramirez-Rivas v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se habeas petition filed by an immigration detainee challenging the denial of bond and a motion to appoint counsel. The court denied the petition and the motion, finding that the petitioner had not met the standard for release under the applicable statutory framework.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied“Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the framework from Zadvydas v. Davis, which governs detention after a final order of removal. The petitioner failed to provide 'good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.' Furthermore, the record indicates the petitioner admitted to wanting to return to El Salvador, undermining any claim that removal is unlikely. The denial is supported by the facts recited in the order. |
Motion to appoint counsel denied“The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 2], as Petitioner has not shown “exceptional circumstances” warranting such an appointment here.” | agree with court In the Ninth Circuit, appointment of counsel in habeas cases is discretionary and generally requires a showing of exceptional circumstances. The court cited Palmer v. Valdez, which supports this standard. Given the petitioner's failure to establish a meritorious claim for habeas relief, the denial of counsel is consistent with circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal framework (Zadvydas) based on the petitioner's status as having a final order of removal. It relies on the specific facts of the record (petitioner's admission of intent to return to El Salvador and lack of appeal) to justify the denial. The citation to Palmer v. Valdez is appropriate for the denial of counsel. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for the decisions made.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN OMAR RAMIREZ-RIVAS, Case No.: 26-cv-3246-RSH-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN, Imperial Regional Detention [ECF No. 2] Facility, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On May 26, 2026, petitioner Juan Omar Ramirez-Rivas, proceeding pro se, filed a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 20 1. Petitioner also filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 2. Respondents have filed a 21 return. ECF No. 7. 22 This is Petitioner’s third habeas petition in recent months. In Petitioner’s first case, 23 No. 26-cv-994, this Court on February 17, 2026 ordered a bond hearing for Petitioner, upon 24 determining that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See No. 26- 25 cv-994, ECF No. 6. The government held a bond hearing on March 9, 2026, at which an 26 immigration judge denied bond. See ECF No. 7-1 at 1. 27 Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second habeas petition, No. 26-cv-1981. On April 14, 28 2026, the Court denied the petition on the grounds that Petitioner was subject to an order 1 of removal that became final on February 26, 2026 upon Petitioner’s waiver of appeal, such 2 that Petitioner’s detention was presently governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and the framework 3 of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). See Case No. 26-cv-1981, ECF. No. 6. As this 4 Court explained, in Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that after a six-month 5 “presumptively reasonable period of detention,” “once the alien provides good reason to 6 believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 7 future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” 8 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. This Court determined that Petitioner had not provided a basis 9 to conclude that his detention at that point in time was unlawful. Case No. 26-cv-1981, 10 ECF. No. 6 at 3. 11 Petitioner’s third and current petition argues that the immigration judge’s denial of 12 bond on March 9, 2026 was erroneous. ECF No. 1 at 6–7. At the Court’s direction, 13 Respondents filed a transcript of that hearing. ECF No. 9. At the hearing, the immigration 14 judge determined that Petitioner posed a flight risk, including because he has been ordered 15 removed to El Salvador and did not appeal that order of removal. ECF No. 9-1 at 4. 16 Petitioner testified that he wants to return to El Salvador. Id. at 3. 17 Petitioner does not dispute that he is subject to a final order of removal, nor does he 18 address the legal framework the Court previously identified as applicable to his 19 circumstances. Petitioner has not provided good reason to believe that there is no 20 significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, or otherwise 21 established his right to relief. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's motion 2 ||for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 2], as Petitioner has not shown “exceptional 3 || circumstances” warranting such an appointment here. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 4 (9th Cir. 2009). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: July 7, 2026 g Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28