Anderson Enriquez Martinez Rios v. Chistopher Larose, Warden
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 28 | deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff's motion for 2 injunctive relief); D
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a DHS detainee and set a briefing schedule. It conditionally appointed counsel, ordered the government to respond, 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 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel“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. This is a standard application of the district court's discretion to appoint counsel in habeas cases where the petitioner is pro se and the issues are complex. |
Injunction against removal of 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 and 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.) to support a limited stay to preserve the status quo and jurisdiction. This is a common procedural mechanism in immigration habeas cases to prevent mootness. The reasoning is consistent with the cited authorities. |
Setting of briefing schedule (Response and Traverse deadlines)“Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business October 2, 2026... Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business October 9, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order setting deadlines for the parties to brief the merits of the habeas petition. It is within the court's inherent authority to manage the docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas case. It correctly identifies the need for counsel based on the complexity of the issues, citing the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt). It also correctly uses the All Writs Act to issue a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction, citing recent district court cases that support this practice. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the procedural needs of the case.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDERSON ENRIQUEZ MARTINEZ Case No.: 26-cv-5333-BJC-VET RIOS, 12 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING Petitioner, 13 SCHEDULE FOR PETITION FOR v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 14 APPOINTING COUNSEL CHISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, 15 Respondent. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 On September 17, 2026, Petitioner Anderson Enriquez Martinez Rios (“Petitioner”), 18 a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration 19 and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. After a review of the petition, this Court deems 21 it appropriate to require Respondents to file a response, and finds that representation is 22 necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 23 procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow 25 the Court to provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. See E-C-R- v. Noem, 26 No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order 27 under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 28 | deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff's motion for 2 injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 3 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the 4 || All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve 5 || the court’s jurisdiction). 6 || Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 7 l. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is CONDITIONALLY APPOINTED 8 ||as 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 25, 2026. 11 5. Respondents shall file a response to the petition no later than close of 12 business October 2, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 13 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 14 6. Petitioner may file a traverse, no later than close of business October 9, 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 and to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request 21 |} at hand. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 18, 2026 24 25 b baw Cb fe Co AY OR A AL Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 27 United States District Judge 28