Ernesto Bautista Baluyot Jr. v. Christopher LaRose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ernesto Bautista Baluyot Jr. and conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel pending a financial eligibility determination. The court also 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 serves the interests of justice. The conditional nature of the appointment, contingent on financial eligibility, is consistent with the CJA and Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Orders Petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit by September 9, 2026.“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by September 9, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement under the Criminal Justice Act to determine 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 relies on appropriate statutory and case law authorities for the conditional appointment of counsel and the preservation of jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNESTO BAUTISTA BALUYOT JR., Case No.: 26-cv-4972-JES-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 CHRISTOPHER LaROSE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Ernesto Bautista Baluyot Jr.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on August 31, 19 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 September 9, 2026, to demonstrate his 26 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 file notice with this Court by September 9, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue 3 || unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an 4 amended Petition no later than September 9, 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: September 2, 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