Ousmane Sy v. Jeremy Casey, 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for appointment of counsel. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the respondents from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Appointment of counsel“The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, which holds that counsel should be appointed in habeas cases where the issues are complex and the petitioner is pro se. The court found the issues complex and potentially valid, satisfying the standard. |
Injunction against removal“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 decide the merits of the habeas petition. This is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas cases to prevent mootness while the petition is pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas case. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent for appointing counsel and issues a standard status quo injunction. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural steps taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OUSMANE SY, Case No.: 26-cv-4693-BJC-JLB A#: 245555568, 12 ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL Petitioner, AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 SCHEDULE ON PETITION FOR v. 14 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS JEREMY CASEY, Warden, Otay Mesa PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 15 Detention Center, et, al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 On August 14, 2026, Petitioner Ousmane Sy, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241, along with a motion to proceed 20 in forma pauperis and a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. On August 21 19, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. 22 Upon review of the Petition, the Court finds that representation is necessary given 23 the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 24 presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the above, the 25 Court ORDERS as follows: 26 1. The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, 27 Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. Petitioner shall submit a form CJA 23 28 1 financial affidavit by August 26, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. 2 See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. 3 § 3006A(b). 4 2. Petitioner may file supplemental briefing providing any additional information 5 the Court may need to rule on the merits of the petition no later than close of 6 business on August 26, 2026. 7 3. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 8 September 2, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 9 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 10 4. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business September 9, 11 2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under 12 submission at that time. 13 5. Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting 14 in active concert or participation with them are ENJOINED from removing 15 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the 16 Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned 17 decision to the request at hand. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: August 19, 2026 20 22 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28