Ousmane Coulibaly v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff 28 1 || while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief);
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee in ICE custody. The court conditionally appointed counsel, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the government from removing the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Appointment of counsel“Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look, a Ninth Circuit precedent, to support the appointment of counsel in a habeas case involving complex constitutional issues. The order recites that the issues are complex and potentially valid, which satisfies the standard for appointment in this context. |
Injunction against removal“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court relies on the All Writs Act and cites two district court cases (E-C-R- v. Noem and Du v. DHS) that granted similar injunctions to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo in immigration-related habeas cases. While the cited cases are not binding, they are persuasive and consistent with the general power of federal courts to issue orders necessary to preserve their jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order that also grants a limited injunction. It correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit authority for the appointment of counsel. For the injunction, it relies on the All Writs Act and persuasive district court authority. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary, status-quo-preserving order in a habeas case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OUSMANE COULIBALY, Case No.: 26-cv-5095-BJC-JAC 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, et al., APPOINTING COUNSEL 15 Respondents. [ECF Nos. 1, 3] 16 17 On September 8, 2026, Petitioner Ousmane Coulibaly, a detainee in the custody of 18 the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 19 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the petition, this Court deems it appropriate to require 21 Respondents to file a response, and finds that representation is necessary given the 22 complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 23 presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Additionally, the Court 24 finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to provide a 25 reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 26 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 27 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff 28 1 || while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief); Du v. 2 || United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at 3 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from 4 ||removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve the court’s 5 || jurisdiction). 6 || Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as 8 ||counsel effectively immediately. 9 4. Petitioner may file either an amended petition or a status report recommending 10 || against appointment no later than close of business on September 17, 2026. 11 5. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 12 ||business September 24, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent 13 |}documents, orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 14 6. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business October 1, 15 |}2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 16 || that time. 17 7. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 18 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 19 || Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to 20 || maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at 21 |{hand. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 10, 2026 24 26 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 27 United States District Judge 28