Jaime Castillo-Baltazar v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee and determined that appointed counsel was necessary due to the complexity of the issues. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the removal of the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look for the proposition that counsel should be appointed when the issues are complex and potentially valid. The order states the court found representation necessary based on the petition's content. While the order does not detail the specific constitutional or statutory issues, the application of the Weygandt standard to a pro se habeas petition involving detention is a standard procedural practice in the Ninth Circuit. The conditionality based on financial eligibility is supported by Terrovona v. Kincheloe and 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b). |
Injunction against removal of Petitioner from the United States or the District“Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are 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 issues a status quo injunction to preserve the court's jurisdiction and ability to rule on the merits of the habeas petition. This is a common equitable remedy in habeas cases involving detained individuals to prevent mootness. The order does not cite specific authority for the injunction, but it is a standard procedural tool to maintain the status quo during litigation. |
Setting of briefing schedule“Petitioner may file supplemental briefing... no later than close of business on July 27, 2026. Respondent shall file a response... no later than close of business August 3, 2026. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business August 10, 2026.” | agree with court The court sets a standard briefing schedule for a habeas petition. This is a routine procedural order to manage the case and ensure timely resolution. No legal error is apparent in setting these deadlines. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Weygandt standard for appointing counsel in a complex pro se habeas case. It properly conditions the appointment on financial eligibility as required by the Criminal Justice Act and Terrovona. The injunction to maintain the status quo is a standard and appropriate procedural measure to preserve the court's jurisdiction. The briefing schedule is reasonable and standard. The order is procedurally sound and relies on appropriate authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME CASTILLO-BALTAZAR, Case No.: 26-cv-3950-BJC-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE 14 WARDEN, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On July 9, 2026, Petitioner Jaime Castillo-Baltazar, proceeding pro se, filed a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. Upon review of the 21 Petition, the Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential 22 validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 23 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 1. The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, 25 Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. Petitioner shall submit a form CJA 23 26 financial affidavit by July 27, 2026 to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 27 Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 28 3006A(b). 1 2. Petitioner may file supplemental briefing providing any additional information 2 the Court may need to rule on the merits of the petition no later than close of 3 business on July 27, 2026. 4 3. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 5 August 3, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 6 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 7 4. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business August 10, 2026. 8 Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission 9 at that time. 10 5. Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting 11 in active concert or participation with them are ENJOINED from removing 12 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the 13 Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned 14 decision to the request at hand. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: July 13, 2026 17 19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28