Hugo Pacheco Caudillo v. Markwayne Mullin; Todd Blanche; Daniel A. Brightman; Todd Lyons; and Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a habeas corpus petition filed by a detained individual, along with concurrent motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel. The court granted both motions, conditionally appointed counsel, and ordered the petitioner to remain in the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner is detained with no income and cannot pay the filing fee. This satisfies the statutory requirement for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). |
Motion for appointment of counsel granted“the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice and GRANTS the motion for appointment of counsel.” | agree with court In habeas corpus proceedings, appointment of counsel is discretionary. The court cited 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look, finding that the complexity of the issues serves the interests of justice. This is a permissible exercise of discretion. |
Counsel conditionally appointed“the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court conditioned the appointment on the petitioner's financial eligibility and the firm's capacity, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terovolas v. Kincheloe. This is a standard procedural mechanism for CJA appointments. |
Petitioner ordered to remain in the district“Petitioner shall be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court cited Doe v. Bondi and A.M. v. LaRose to preserve jurisdiction by maintaining the status quo. This is a common equitable measure in habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory and case law standards for IFP status and appointment of counsel. It properly conditions the appointment on financial eligibility and capacity. The jurisdictional preservation order is supported by recent district court precedent. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these procedural matters.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUGO PACHECO CAUDILLO, Case No.: 26-cv-5102-JES-JAC 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN; TODD LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA BLANCHE; DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN; 15 PAUPERIS; TODD LYONS; and JEREMY CASEY, 16 Respondents. (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 17 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; and 18 (3) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 19 COUNSEL 20 [ECF No. 2] 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Hugo Pacheco Caudillo’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on September 8, 24 2026. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 25 pauperis (“IFP”) and for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 2. 26 In support of his request for IFP, Petitioner states that he is currently detained with 27 no income, and therefore does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. Good cause 28 appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed IFP. 1 Turning next to the request for appointment of counsel, considering the complexity 2 the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented in this matter, the Court 3 || finds that representation will serve the interests of justice and GRANTS the motion for 4 ||appointment of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 5 ||954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS 6 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court 7 || ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by September 18, 2026, 8 ||to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 9 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 10 || determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does 11 have the capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify 12 || Petitioner and file notice with this Court by September 18, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 13 continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 14 || may file an amended Petition no later than September 18, 2026. 15 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 16 be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 17 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 18 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 19 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 20 || the court.) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 21 2025). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: September 10, 2026 24 Sa— 25 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. % United States District Judge 27 28