Ramon Saavedra Ruiz v. Christopher Larose, et al
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court conditionally appointed counsel, set a briefing schedule, and issued an injunction preventing the removal of the petitioner from the United States or the District.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Conditionally Granted“The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel effectively immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, finding that the complexity and potential validity of the issues necessitated representation. The condition of financial eligibility via a CJA 23 affidavit is consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe. |
Briefing Schedule Set“Petitioner may file supplemental briefing... no later than close of business on October 7, 2026. Respondent shall file a response... no later than close of business October 14, 2026.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and set reasonable deadlines for briefing in a habeas corpus proceeding. |
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Granted“Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court” | agree with court The court issued an injunction to maintain the status quo, which is a standard equitable remedy to preserve the court's jurisdiction and ability to provide a reasoned decision on the habeas petition. While the order does not explicitly detail the four-factor TRO test, maintaining the status quo in habeas cases to prevent mootness is a well-established practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the need for counsel based on Ninth Circuit precedent and sets a logical briefing schedule. The injunction to maintain the status quo is appropriate to preserve the court's jurisdiction over the habeas petition. The order is concise and addresses the immediate 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 RAMON SAAVEDRA RUIZ, Case No.: 26-cv-5453-BJC-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE ON PETITION FOR 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 15 Respondents.
16 17 18 On September 22, 2026, Petitioner Ramon Saavedra Ruiz, proceeding pro se, filed 19 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241, along with a Motion 20 to Appoint Counsel and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 21 2, 3. 22 Upon review of the Petition, the Court finds that representation is necessary given 23 the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 24 presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the above, the 25 Court ORDERS as follows: 26 1. The Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, 27 Inc. as counsel effectively immediately. Petitioner shall submit a form CJA 23 28 financial affidavit by October 7, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. 1 See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990); 18 U.S.C. 2 § 3006A(b). 3 2. Petitioner may file supplemental briefing providing any additional information 4 the Court may need to rule on the merits of the petition no later than close of 5 business on October 7, 2026. 6 3. Respondent shall file a response to the petition no later than close of business 7 October 14, 2026. Respondents shall include copies of all pertinent documents, 8 orders, and transcripts relevant to this petition. 9 4. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than close of business October 21, 2026. 10 Absent further order of this Court, this matter will be deemed under submission 11 at that time. 12 5. Respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting 13 in active concert or participation with them are ENJOINED from removing 14 Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the 15 Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned 16 decision to the request at hand. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: September 23, 2026 19 Drgom Chalo 1 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28