Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEDAT ARICI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04512-RBM-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING IFP MOTION 14 TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney General, et [Doc. 7]; al., 15 Respondents. (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 16 APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 2] 17 18 Petitioner Sedat Arici (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee formerly incarcerated 19 at Otay Mesa Detention Center and proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) The day after the 21 Petition was filed, Respondents filed a Notice of Transfer Out of District Before Petition 22 Filed, representing that Petitioner was transferred from Otay Mesa Detention Center to 23 California City Corrections Center. (Doc. 4 at 1.) The Court found that it retained 24 jurisdiction over the Petition but issued an Order to Show Cause because Petitioner had not 25 paid the filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 5.) 26 On August 17, 2026, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed in District Court 27 without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Motion”). (Doc. 7.) The Court thus 28 DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause. 1 I. IFP MOTION 2 In the IFP Motion, Petitioner attests that he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. 3 (Id. at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion. The Clerk of 4 Court shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 5 II. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 6 Petitioner has also filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion to Appoint 7 Counsel”). (Doc. 2.) “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt 8 determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any 9 financially eligible person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 10 of title 28.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is 11 “financially unable to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Id. 12 § 3006A(a). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district 13 court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 14 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 15 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 16 Here, Petitioner attests that he cannot afford an attorney because he no longer has a 17 job or any means to pay. (Doc. 2 at 3.) He also represents that he is unable to litigate his 18 Petition because of the “limited legal information” available to him in custody. (Id.) “The 19 Court also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity 20 of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev v. Warden, Case 21 No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing Weygandt v. 22 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY 23 APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 24 III. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 25 The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva 26 v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate 27 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 28 patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th 1 || Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do not need to identify 2 || the constitutional source of the claims raised). 3 Petitioner may file an amended petition, through new counsel, on or before 4 September 2, 2026. Respondents SHALL RESPOND on or before September 9, 2026. 5 Their Response shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the 6 || determination of the issues raised, including any relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s 7 ||immigration history. Petitioner may file a reply on or before September 16, 2026. The 8 ||matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further 9 || order from the Court. 10 The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the 11 || TRO Motion (Doc. 3), and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal 12 || Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance 13 |/on or before August 25, 2026. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||DATE: August 19, 2026 Bitrate Mewes 7 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28