Dilia Yaneth Navarrete-Navarrete v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel and motion to expedite in a habeas corpus case. The court granted the motion to appoint counsel conditionally and denied the motion to expedite.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Granted“Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for appointment of counsel in habeas cases, finding that representation serves the interests of justice due to the complexity of the issues. This is a standard discretionary determination supported by the cited authorities. |
Motion to Expedite Denied“Given this timeline in order to permit new counsel to appear and adequately review the petition, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of her petition.” | agree with court The court denied the motion to expedite because the appointment of counsel requires time for the attorney to review the petition. This is a reasonable procedural decision to ensure adequate representation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant statutes and case law to grant the motion to appoint counsel and denies the motion to expedite for valid procedural reasons. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DILIA YANETH NAVARRETE- Case No.: 26-cv-4984-JES-GC NAVARRETE, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 APPOINT COUNSEL; and Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, and 15 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS (2) DENYING MOTION TO 16 ENFORCEMENT, EXPEDITE 17 Respondents. 18 [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 19 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Dilia Yaneth Naverrete-Navarrete’s 20 (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), 21 filed on September 2, 2026. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed motions to expedite 22 and to appoint counsel. ECF Nos. 2, 3. 23 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 24 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 25 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 26 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to appoint counsel and 27 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 28 1 || effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial 2 || affidavit by Friday, September 11, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 3 ||U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If 4 || Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible 5 appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent him, Federal 6 Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by 7 || Friday, September 11, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal 8 || Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later 9 Friday, September 11, 2026. 10 Given this timeline in order to permit new counsel to appear and adequately review 11 ||the petition, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of her 12 || petition. 13 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 14 || not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 15 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 16 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 17 ||has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 18 || the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 19 2025). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: September 4, 2026 22 w= Siam, United States District Judge 25 26 27 28