Menos Osson v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal Defenders of San Dieg
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his request for appointed counsel. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, and ordered that the petitioner not be removed from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for the Petitioner.“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases, finding that the complexity of the issues served the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Ninth Circuit precedent. The conditional nature of the appointment, requiring a financial affidavit, is procedurally appropriate. |
Orders Petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit by September 4, 2026.“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, September 4, 2026, to demonstrate financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement under the Criminal Justice Act to verify eligibility for appointed counsel. |
Orders that Petitioner shall not be removed from the District to preserve jurisdiction.“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 correctly identified the need to preserve jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner while the habeas petition is pending, citing relevant district court authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the relevant statutes and case law for the conditional appointment of counsel and the preservation of jurisdiction. It follows standard district court practice for pro se habeas petitions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MENOS OSSON, Case No.: 26-cv-4834-JES-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Menos Osson’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on July 31, 2026. ECF 20 No. 1. In the Petition, Petitioner requests that the Court appoint counsel to assist him. Id. 21 at 7. 22 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 23 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 24 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 26 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 27 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, September 4, 2026, to demonstrate 28 1 financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 2 |{1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that 3 Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the 4 ||capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner 5 file notice with this Court by Friday, September 4, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 6 || continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 7 ||may file an amended Petition no later than Friday, September 4, 2026. 8 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 9 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 10 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 11 (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 12 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 13 court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 14 2025). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: August 26, 2026 18 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28