Xiao Ming Long v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 28 deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for 1 ||injunctive relief);
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained individual and determined that the complexity of the issues warranted the appointment of counsel. The court conditionally appointed the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the respondents 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 in habeas corpus proceedings, the court should appoint counsel where the issues are complex and the petitioner is likely to have a meritorious claim. The order recites that the court found representation necessary given the 'complexity and potential validity' of the issues, which aligns with the standard set forth in Weygandt. The decision follows from the cited authority and the recited facts. |
Injunction against removal“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 orders (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec.) that used the Act to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. While the All Writs Act is a valid basis for such orders, the court does not explicitly state the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction (e.g., likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest). However, in the context of preserving jurisdiction in a habeas case, courts often issue such orders to prevent the case from becoming moot. The cited cases support the proposition that the All Writs Act can be used for this purpose. The decision is defensible but lacks explicit articulation of the traditional injunction factors. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly applies the Weygandt standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases. For the injunction, the court relies on the All Writs Act and analogous district court orders to preserve jurisdiction. While the order does not explicitly recite the traditional preliminary injunction factors, the use of the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction in habeas cases is a recognized practice, and the cited authorities support the court's action. The reasoning is sufficient to support the result, though it could be more detailed regarding the injunction standard.
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 XIAO MING LONG, Case No.: 26-cv-3663-BJC-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior APPOINTING COUNSEL Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. 15 al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On June 22, 2026, Petitioner Xiao Ming Long filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the petition, this Court 21 deems it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response, and finds that representation 22 is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 23 procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow 25 the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, 26 No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order 27 under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 28 deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for 1 ||injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep ’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2 ||2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the 3 || All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve 4 || the court’s jurisdiction). 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED 7 as counsel effectively immediately. 8 2. Petitioner may file either an amended petition or a status report recommending 9 against appointment no later than close of business on July 14, 2026. 10 3. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 11 business July 21, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent 12 documents, orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 13 4. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business July 28, 2026. 14 Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under 15 submission at that time. 16 5. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 17 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED 18 from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending 19 further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to 20 provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: July 7, 2026 23 24 Degen (4 ao 2 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 26 United States District Judge 27 28