Igor Popov v. Warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — If Fede
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Igor Popov, a detainee, filed a habeas corpus petition and a concurrent motion for appointment of counsel. The court granted the motion for appointment of counsel, conditionally appointing Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and ordered the petitioner to submit a financial affidavit to confirm eligibility.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for appointment of counsel granted“GRANTS the motion for appointment of counsel.” | agree with court The court applied the 'interests of justice' standard under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and cited Weygandt v. Look, which supports appointment in complex habeas cases. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the recited complexity of the issues. |
Counsel conditionally appointed“CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The appointment is conditional upon the petitioner's financial eligibility, which is a standard requirement under the Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b)). The court correctly cited Terovolas v. Kincheloe regarding the necessity of a financial affidavit. |
Petitioner ordered to submit financial affidavit“ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 5, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility.” | agree with court This is a procedural requirement mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) for appointed counsel in civil cases. The deadline is reasonable and consistent with the conditional nature of the appointment. |
Petitioner ordered to remain in district to preserve jurisdiction“Petitioner shall be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court cites Doe v. Bondi and A.M. v. LaRose to support the proposition that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction. This is a common procedural order in habeas cases to prevent mootness or loss of jurisdiction due to transfer. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Criminal Justice Act standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases, citing the appropriate statute and Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt, Terovolas). The jurisdictional order is supported by recent district court authority. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IGOR POPOV, Case No.: 26-cv-5317-JES-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 WARDEN OF THE IMPERIAL APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; and REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, 15 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING 16 DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO FIELD COUNSEL OFFICE, UNITED STATES 17 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 18 ENFORCEMENT; CURRENT OR [ECF No. 2] 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 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondents. 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Igor Popov’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas 26 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on September 15, 2026. ECF No. 27 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 2. 28 1 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 2 || presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice 3 GRANTS the motion for appointment of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 4 || Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby 5 || CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, 6 || effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial 7 affidavit by October 5, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 8 ||3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal 9 ||Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for 10 |;}appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent him, Federal 11 ||Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by 12 || October 5, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders 13 ||choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later than 14 || October 5, 2026. 15 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 16 be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 17 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 18 (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 19 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 20 || the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 21 2025). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: September 28, 2026 24 Sa— Sin, 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 27 28