Rigoberto Fierros Pedroza v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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 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 in habeas cases involving complex constitutional, statutory, or procedural issues. The order recites that the court found representation necessary based on the complexity and potential validity of the issues presented. This follows the standard Ninth Circuit framework for appointing counsel in § 2241 cases. |
Injunction against removal of petitioner“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 issued a status quo injunction to preserve its jurisdiction and ability to rule on the merits of the habeas petition. This is a standard procedural measure in habeas cases to prevent mootness while the petition is pending. The order does not cite specific authority for the injunction but relies on the inherent power of the court to maintain the status quo. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases by citing Weygandt v. Look. It properly conditions the appointment on financial eligibility as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe. The status quo injunction is a standard procedural tool to preserve jurisdiction in habeas cases. The order is procedurally sound and follows established practice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RIGOBERTO FIERROS PEDROZA, Case No.: 26-cv-3529-BJC-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE 14 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et, al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On June 12, 2026, Petitioner Rigoberto Fierros Pedroza, proceeding pro se, filed a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. Upon review of the 19 Petition, the Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential 20 validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 21 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 22 1. The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, 23 Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. Petitioner shall submit a form CJA 23 24 financial affidavit by July 24, 2026 to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 25 Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. § 26 3006A(b). 27 2. Petitioner may file supplemental briefing providing any additional information 28 1 the Court may need to rule on the merits of the petition no later than close of 2 business on July 24, 2026. 3 3. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 4 July 31, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 5 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 6 4. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business August 7, 2026. 7 Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission 8 at that time. 9 5. Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting 10 in active concert or participation with them are ENJOINED from removing 11 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the 12 Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned 13 decision to the request at hand. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: July 17, 2026 16 18 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28