Marco Tulio Hernandez Mendez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that 28 Petitione
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee. The court conditionally appointed counsel, 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 |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court cites 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983), which support the appointment of counsel in complex habeas cases. The decision to appoint counsel is within the court's discretion and follows the cited authorities. |
Order requiring Petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, September 4, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court The court cites 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176 (9th Cir. 1990), which establish the requirement for financial eligibility for appointed counsel. The order is procedurally correct. |
Order that Petitioner shall not be removed from the District“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 cites Doe v. Bondi and A.M. v. LaRose to support the proposition that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while a petition is pending. This is a standard procedural order in habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling in a habeas case. It correctly cites the relevant statutes and Ninth Circuit precedent for appointing counsel and preserving jurisdiction. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural actions taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO TULIO HERNANDEZ Case No.: 26-cv-4890-JES-BJW MENDEZ, 12 ORDER CONDITIONALLY Petitioner, 13 APPOINTING COUNSEL v. 14 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Marco Tulio Hernandez Mendez’s (“Petitioner”) 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on 19 August 27, 2026. ECF No. 1. Petitioner is currently proceeding pro se in the matter. 20 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 21 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 22 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 23 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 24 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 25 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, September 4, 2026, to demonstrate 26 his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 27 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that 28 Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the 1 || capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner 2 |{and file notice with this Court by Friday, September 4, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 3 ||continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 4 || may file an amended Petition no later than Friday, September 4, 2026. 5 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 6 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 7 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 8 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 9 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 10 || the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 11 2025). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: August 28, 2026 14 “ur Sin, 15 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28