Andy Rodriguez Pupo v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a § 2241 habeas petition filed by a detained individual and ordered the appointment of counsel, set a briefing schedule, and issued a limited stay enjoining the government from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), which establishes that appointed counsel is appropriate in habeas cases where the issues are complex and the petitioner has a meritorious claim. The court explicitly finds the issues complex and potentially valid, satisfying the standard. The appointment is conditional on the petitioner's financial eligibility or a recommendation against appointment, which is a standard procedural safeguard. |
Issuance of a limited stay enjoining removal from the United States or the District“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby 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 relies on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cites two district court cases (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) that granted similar stays to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo in immigration-related habeas cases. While the cited cases are persuasive district court authority rather than binding circuit precedent, the use of the All Writs Act to preserve the court's jurisdiction over a detained person is a well-established practice in the Ninth Circuit. The order is narrowly tailored to the pendency of the case. |
Setting of briefing schedule“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business September 9, 2026. ... Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business September 16, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to manage the litigation. The deadlines are reasonable and allow time for the newly appointed counsel to prepare. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases by citing the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, Weygandt v. Look. The decision to issue a limited stay is supported by the All Writs Act and analogous district court decisions. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order at the outset of litigation. It does not skip any critical arguments or authorities necessary for the specific rulings made (appointment and stay).
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDY RODRIGUEZ PUPO, Case No.: 26-cv-4342-BJC-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, APPOINTING COUNSEL 15 Respondent.
16 17 18 19 On July 28, 2026, Petitioner Andy Rodriguez Pupo filed a Petition for a Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without paying the filing fee or moving to 21 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. The Court issued an order to show cause directing 22 Petitioner to either pay the filing fee or submit proof of his inability to pay the fee. ECF 23 No. 3. Petitioner paid the filing fee. ECF Nos. 4, 5. 24 After a review of the petition, this Court deems it appropriate to require Respondents 25 to file a response, and finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and 26 potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. 27 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Additionally, the Court finds a 28 limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned 1 || decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 3 ||§ 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the 4 || parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief); Du v. United States 5 || Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. 6 || Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the 7 || plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve the court’s jurisdiction). 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as 10 || counsel effectively immediately. 11 4. Petitioner may file either an amended petition and submit an affidavit 12 demonstrating financial eligibility, or a status report recommending against appointment 13 ||no later than close of business on September 1, 2026. 14 5. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 15 || business September 9, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 16 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 17 6. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business September 16, 18 2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 19 || that time. 20 7. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 21 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 22 ||Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to 23 || maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at 24 || hand. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: August 21, 2026 6 C4 fe Degqinn Chala 28 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge