Jose Dearcia-Guillen v. Markwayne MULLIN, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an unrepresented petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for appointed counsel in a § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging immigration detention. The court granted both motions, provisionally appointing Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to determine eligibility for representation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF 2) Granted“His request to proceed without paying the five-dollar filing fee is granted, as he claims to have “no job[], assets, or cash[.]”” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires a declaration of inability to pay. The petitioner's affidavit stating he has no job, assets, or cash satisfies this requirement. The citation to Gibson v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t supports the proposition that complete destitution is not required, though the petitioner's claim of having no assets is sufficient on its face. |
Motion for Appointed Counsel (ECF 3) Granted (Provisional Appointment)“The Court also grants the request for counsel and provisionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., to determine whether petitioner qualifies for representation by that organization for this petition.” | agree with court In habeas corpus proceedings, particularly those involving immigration detention, courts have discretion to appoint counsel if the petitioner is indigent and the issues are complex or the petitioner is unable to present the case effectively. The court's decision to provisionally appoint the Federal Defenders to assess eligibility is a standard procedural mechanism in the Southern District of California for such cases. The order does not explicitly state the legal standard for appointment (e.g., the factors from Mireles v. Waco or the specific local rules), but the action is consistent with the court's inherent authority and local practice. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a routine procedural order granting IFP status and initiating the process for appointed counsel. It correctly cites a recent district court case for the IFP standard. It does not provide a detailed legal analysis for the appointment of counsel, relying instead on the provisional appointment mechanism and local procedures (Chief Order No. 144). While it skips a detailed discussion of the factors for appointing counsel in a § 2241 case, the result is defensible and follows standard practice in the district.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Jose Dearcia-Guillen, Case No.: 26-cv-4782-AGS-VET 4 Plaintiff,} ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 5 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 2), GRANTING MOTION FOR 6 || Markwayne MULLIN, et al., APPOINTED COUNSEL (ECF 3), 7 Defendants AND SETTING BRIEFING ‘| SCHEDULE 8 9 Unrepresented petitioner Jose Dearcia-Guillen seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 10 || 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention, and he moves to proceed without 11 || paying the filing fee and for appointed counsel. (See ECF 2 & 3.) His request to proceed 12 || without paying the five-dollar filing fee is granted, as he claims to have “no job[], assets, 13 or cash[.]” (ECF 2, at 3); see also Gibson v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t, No. 26-CV- 14 || 3888-AGS-DDL, 2026 WL 2034466, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2026) (holding a “plaintiff 15 |/need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP” (cleaned up)). The Court also grants the 16 |/request for counsel and provisionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., to 17 determine whether petitioner qualifies for representation by that organization for this 18 || petition. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to Federal Defenders at 19 ||CAS_2241@fd.org. By September 7, 2026, Federal Defenders must submit a notice to the 20 || Court detailing whether it will accept the appointment. If it accepts appointment and files 21 ||an amended petition, the Court adopts the Standard Procedures from Chief Judge Order 22 || No. 144 for that amended petition. 23 ||Dated: August 24, 2026 24 5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 26 27 28 ]