Jose Guadalupe Altamirano Ahumada v. Christopher J. Larose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — shall notify Petitioner and file notice with the Court o
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas petition filed by an ICE detainee and conditionally appointed counsel for the petitioner. The court ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule, and enjoined the removal of the petitioner from the district pending resolution.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for the petitioner.“Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court cites 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983), which support the appointment of counsel in habeas cases where the interests of justice so require. The finding that the issues are complex and potentially valid supports this decision. |
Enjoins the respondent from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending resolution of the petition.“Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondent are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this district pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” | agree with court The court relies on Doe v. Bondi, 2025 WL 1870979 (S.D. Cal. 2025), to preserve the status quo. This is a standard procedural measure in habeas cases to ensure the court retains jurisdiction and the petitioner is not removed while the petition is pending. |
Orders the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted by filing a Return.“Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before October 5, 2026.” | agree with court This is the standard procedural step in a § 2241 habeas case after the petition is filed and counsel is appointed (or the petitioner proceeds pro se). It allows the government to respond to the allegations. |
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, cites appropriate authority for the appointment, and issues a standard injunction to preserve the status quo. The briefing schedule is reasonable and follows local rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GUADALUPE ALTAMIRANO Case No.: 26cv5331-LL-DEB AHUMADA, 12 ORDER CONDITIONALLY Petitioner, 13 APPOINTING COUNSEL AND v. SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Altamirano Ahumada, proceeding pro se, is a detainee in 19 the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 20 Enforcement (“ICE”). On September 17, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner was detained on August 21, 2026 22 and is currently detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. Pet. at 2. 23 The Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice in this § 2241 24 petition, given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and 25 procedural issues presented. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 26 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal 27 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. If Federal Defenders of 28 1 San Diego, Inc. determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible to be appointed counsel 2 or that it does not have the resources to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San 3 Diego, Inc. shall notify Petitioner and file notice with the Court on or before September 4 25, 2026. If that occurs, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. 5 Additionally, to maintain the status quo, Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, 6 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 7 Respondent are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or 8 this district pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition. See Doe v. Bondi, No. 25-CV- 9 805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain 10 jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] subject matter 11 jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) 12 (collecting cases). 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 14 1. On or before September 28, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended petition. 15 An amended petition will supersede and replace the original petition, so the amended 16 petition must be complete in and of itself without reference to the original petition. 17 2. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not 18 be granted by filing a written Return on or before October 5, 2026. The Return shall 19 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and 20 shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondent shall 21 serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 22 3. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before October 23 8, 2026. 24 4. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 25 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 26 notified otherwise. 27 / / / 28 1 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 2 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 21, 2026 NO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28