Virginio Garcia Bello v. Christopher J. Larose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — shall notify Petitioner and fil
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an ICE detainee. It conditionally appointed counsel, enjoined the government from removing the petitioner from the district, and set a briefing schedule for the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of counsel“Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt v. Look) to determine that representation serves the interests of justice given the complexity of the habeas petition. The conditional nature of the appointment (subject to financial eligibility and resources) is standard practice. |
Injunction against removal from the United States or district“Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondent are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this district pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” | agree with court The court relied on Doe v. Bondi to justify preserving the status quo while the petition is pending. This is a standard procedural measure in habeas cases to ensure the court retains jurisdiction and the petitioner remains available for adjudication. |
Order to show cause and briefing schedule“Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before September 11, 2026.” | agree with court The court established a standard procedural timeline for the habeas petition, allowing the petitioner to amend, the respondent to file a return, and the petitioner to file a traverse. This follows standard habeas corpus procedures. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas corpus case. It correctly applies the relevant statutes and case law to appoint counsel and preserve the status quo. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural steps taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VIRGINIO GARCIA BELLO, Case No.: 26cv4896-LL-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Virginio Garcia Bello, proceeding pro se, is a detainee in the custody of 19 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 20 (“ICE”). On August 27, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 21 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1 [“Pet.”]). Petitioner was detained on July 20, 2026 and is 22 currently detained at Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Pet. at 1, 2. 23 The Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice in this § 2241 24 petition, given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 25 procedural issues presented. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 26 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal 27 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. If Federal Defenders of 28 1 San Diego, Inc. determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible to be appointed counsel 2 or that it does not have the resources to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San 3 Diego, Inc. shall notify Petitioner and file notice with the Court on or before September 4 2, 2026. If that occurs, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. 5 Additionally, to maintain the status quo, Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, 6 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 7 Respondent are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or 8 this district pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition. See Doe v. Bondi, No. 25-CV- 9 805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain 10 jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] subject matter 11 jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) 12 (collecting cases). 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 14 1. On or before September 4, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended petition. An 15 amended petition will supersede and replace the original petition, so the amended petition 16 must be complete in and of itself without reference to the original petition. 17 2. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not 18 be granted by filing a written Return on or before September 11, 2026. The Return shall 19 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and 20 shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondent shall 21 serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 22 3. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before 23 September 16, 2026. 24 4. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 25 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 26 notified otherwise. 27 / / / 28 1 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 2 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: August 28, 2026 NO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28