Fonkwa Donacien Youdom Shu v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion challenging the adequacy of a previously ordered bond hearing in a habeas corpus case. The court conditionally appointed counsel, ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to appoint counsel conditionally granted“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for appointment of counsel in habeas cases, finding that the complexity of the issues serves the interests of justice. This is a discretionary determination supported by the cited authorities. |
Order to file financial affidavit“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Wednesday, July 29, 2026, to demonstrate financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a procedural requirement mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) for the appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. |
Order to preserve jurisdiction (stay of removal)“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to preserve the status quo and its jurisdiction while the petition is pending, citing district-specific precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for appointing counsel in a habeas case, cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for the 'interests of justice' standard, and includes the necessary procedural steps for financial eligibility. The order to stay removal is a standard exercise of jurisdiction to prevent mootness.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FONKWA DONACIEN YOUDOM SHU, Case No.: 26-cv-2405-JES-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, [ECF No. 10] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Before the Court is a motion by pro se Petitioner Fonkwa Donacien Youdom Shu’s 24 (“Petitioner”) challenging the adequacy of a bond hearing this Court previously ordered 25 following a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 10; see also ECF Nos. 1, 7. 26 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 27 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 28 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 || Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 2 ||San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 3 ||submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Wednesday, July 29, 2026, to demonstrate 4 financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 5 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that 6 || Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the 7 || capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner 8 file notice with this Court by Wednesday, July 29, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 9 || continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 10 file an amended motion no later than Monday, August 3, 2026. 11 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 12 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 13 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 14 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 15 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 16 court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 17 2025). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: July 21, 2026 20 AA Sin, 21 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr 0 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28