Pascual Ordonez Gomez v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility; Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 8 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 1, 2026, t
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking release and the appointment of counsel. The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel, ordered the petitioner to submit a financial affidavit, and enjoined the removal of the petitioner from the district pending the resolution of the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for the petitioner.“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for appointing counsel in habeas corpus proceedings, finding that representation serves the interests of justice given the complexity of the issues. The conditional nature of the appointment, pending financial eligibility, is consistent with the Criminal Justice Act and Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Orders petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 1, 2026, to demonstrate financial eligibility for appointed counsel.“The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 1, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement under the Criminal Justice Act for individuals seeking appointed counsel. The deadline is reasonable and consistent with the conditional appointment. |
Enjoins respondents from removing the petitioner from the district pending further order of the court.“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court correctly exercised its inherent power to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm by enjoining the removal of the petitioner. This is a standard practice in habeas corpus cases involving detained individuals to ensure the court can adjudicate the merits of the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the relevant legal standards for appointing counsel and preserving jurisdiction in a habeas corpus case. The court cites appropriate authorities for each of its decisions, including the Criminal Justice Act, Ninth Circuit precedent on the appointment of counsel, and recent cases on the court's power to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is clear and directly addresses the petitioner's requests.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PASCUAL ORDONEZ GOMEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-5459-JES-JAC 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA DETENTION FACILITY; CURRENT [ECF No. 1] 15 OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE 16 DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED STATES 17 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 18 ENFORCEMENT; CURRENT OR ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED 19 STATES IMMIGRATION AND 20 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; CURRENT OR ACTING SECRETARY, 21 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 22 HOMELAND SECURITY; AND CURRENT OR ACTING UNITED 23 STATES GENERAL, 24 Respondents. 25 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Pascual Ordonez Gomez’ Petition for Writ of 26 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on September 22, 2026. 27 ECF No. 1. Petitioner has been in immigration detention since July 14, 2026, and alleges 28 1 that he is detained without justification despite significant ties within the country. Id. at 5. 2 Petitioner seeks release and requests that the Court appoint counsel to assist him. Id. at 6. 3 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 4 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 5 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 7 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 8 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 1, 2026, to demonstrate his financial 9 eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 10 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not 11 financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent 12 him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this 13 Court by October 1, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal 14 Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later 15 than October 8, 2026. 16 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 17 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 18 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 19 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 20 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 21 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 22 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 23 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 24 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 25 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 26 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 27 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 28 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 1 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 2 approval from the court). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 24, 2026 6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 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