— gno.law

District Court, S.D. California · 3:26-cv-05260 · 2026-09-16 · Unknown

Sebastian Galindo-Martin v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:17Z · confidence medium

The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained individual and determined that appointed counsel was necessary due to the complexity of the issues. The court ordered the appointment of Federal Defenders, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the respondents from removing the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.

What the court decided	The model
Appointment of counsel “The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.”	agree with court The court cites Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), which establishes that in habeas corpus proceedings, the court should appoint counsel when the petitioner is unable to present their claims effectively and the issues are complex. The order recites that representation is necessary given the 'complexity and potential validity' of the issues, which aligns with the standard set forth in Weygandt. Therefore, the decision follows from the law and the record recited.
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, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cites two district court cases (E-C-R v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) that used the Act to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. While the All Writs Act is a valid basis for such orders, the court does not cite the specific Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent governing the scope of the All Writs Act in the context of immigration detention or habeas corpus (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), or related Ninth Circuit authority on preserving jurisdiction in removal cases). However, the cited district court cases are factually analogous, and the purpose of preserving the status quo is a recognized function of the All Writs Act. The decision is defensible based on the cited authorities, though it lacks higher-level precedent.

What the court decided

The model

Appointment of counsel

“The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.”

agree with court
The court cites Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), which establishes that in habeas corpus proceedings, the court should appoint counsel when the petitioner is unable to present their claims effectively and the issues are complex. The order recites that representation is necessary given the 'complexity and potential validity' of the issues, which aligns with the standard set forth in Weygandt. Therefore, the decision follows from the law and the record recited.

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, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and cites two district court cases (E-C-R v. Noem and Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec.) that used the Act to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. While the All Writs Act is a valid basis for such orders, the court does not cite the specific Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent governing the scope of the All Writs Act in the context of immigration detention or habeas corpus (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), or related Ninth Circuit authority on preserving jurisdiction in removal cases). However, the cited district court cases are factually analogous, and the purpose of preserving the status quo is a recognized function of the All Writs Act. The decision is defensible based on the cited authorities, though it lacks higher-level precedent.

The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the need for appointed counsel in a complex habeas case and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt). The injunction against removal is supported by the All Writs Act and analogous district court cases. However, the order does not cite the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Zadvydas) or other Ninth Circuit authority that specifically addresses the use of the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction in immigration-related habeas cases. This is a gap in the legal analysis, as the court relies on unpublished district court orders rather than binding appellate authority for the injunction. The result is defensible, but the reasoning is incomplete.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEBASTIAN GALINDO-MARTIN, Case No.: 26-cv-05260-BJC-GC 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior APPOINTING COUNSEL Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. 15 al., [ECF No. 1] 16 Respondents.

19 On September 11, 2026, Petitioner Sebastian Galindo-Martin filed a Petition for a 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Upon review of the 21 Petition, the Court deems it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response. Further, 22 the Court finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity 23 of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 24 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to 25 preserve the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending 26 application. See E-C-R v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. 27 July 16, 2025) (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to 28 1 prevent the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the 2 ||merits of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of 3 || Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 4 || 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from 5 District of Connecticut to preserve the court’s jurisdiction). 6 In light of the above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 7 1. The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San 8 Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. 9 2. Petitioner may file either an amended petition, supplemental briefing 10 providing any additional information the Court may need to rule on the merits, 1] or a status report recommending against appointment no later than close of 12 business on September 30, 2026. 13 3. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 14 business October 7, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent 15 documents, orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 16 4. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business October 14, 17 2026. Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under 18 submission at that time. 19 5. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 20 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED 21 from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending 22 further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to 23 provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 16, 2026 27 Digon Cha 28 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge