Tape Ghislain Romaric v. Warden Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, 26 detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s 27 motion for injunctive relief);
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and set a briefing schedule for the parties. The court conditionally appointed counsel for the petitioner and issued a limited stay enjoining the respondent from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for the Petitioner.“Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look for the proposition that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the issues presented. This is a standard basis for appointing counsel in habeas proceedings where the petitioner is pro se and the issues are complex. |
Issuance of a limited stay enjoining the Respondent from removing the Petitioner from the United States or the District.“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, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cites district court cases (E-C-R-v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) to support the necessity of a stay to preserve the status quo and the court's jurisdiction. This is a common procedural mechanism in immigration-related habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
Setting of a briefing schedule for the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business September 28, 2026.” | agree with court The court sets specific deadlines for the respondent's response and the petitioner's traverse, which is standard case management procedure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order that also includes a limited stay. It correctly cites Weygandt v. Look for the appointment of counsel. For the stay, it relies on the All Writs Act and two recent district court cases from other districts. While these are not binding on the S.D. California, they are persuasive and consistent with the general practice of issuing stays in immigration habeas cases to prevent mootness. The order is procedurally sound and follows standard practice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAPE GHISLAIN ROMARIC, Case No.: 26-cv-4910-BJC-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY APPOINTING COUNSEL 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 On August 27, 2026, Petitioner Tape Ghislain Romaric filed a Petition for a Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the petition, 19 this Court deems it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response, and finds that 20 representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, 21 statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 22 1983). Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo 23 to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- 24 v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding 25 an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, 26 detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s 27 motion for injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV- 28 1 ||644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, 2 ||under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to 3 || preserve the court’s jurisdiction). 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED as 6 counsel effectively immediately. 7 2. Petitioner may file either an amended petition or a status report recommending 8 against appointment no later than close of business on September 21, 2026. 9 3. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 10 September 28, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 11 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 12 4. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business October 5, 2026. 13 Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission at 14 that time. 15 5. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting 16 in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 17 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, 18 to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the 19 request at hand. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 14, 2026 22 23 Degen Chofa— 24 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 26-cv-4910-BJC-DDL