Francisco Gonzalez v. Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 27 (9th Ci
- 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. It conditionally appointed counsel, ordered the petitioner to file a financial affidavit, and enjoined the respondent from removing the petitioner from the district pending resolution of the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Conditional appointment of counsel“Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases, finding that representation serves the interests of justice due to the complexity of the issues. This is a standard discretionary determination supported by the cited Ninth Circuit authority. |
Order to file financial affidavit“The Court 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 the Criminal Justice Act for the appointment of counsel. The court correctly cited the relevant statute and case law. |
Injunction against removal from district“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 issued an injunction to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo. It cited recent district court orders and the Supreme Court case A.A.R.P v. Trump to support its power to issue such relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction. This is a standard equitable power exercised to ensure the court can adjudicate the habeas petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the need for counsel based on the complexity of the habeas petition, follows the statutory requirements for financial eligibility, and exercises its equitable power to preserve jurisdiction by enjoining removal. The citations to both statute and case law are appropriate and support the rulings made.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-5526-JES-GC 12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL 14 OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Francisco Gonzalez’s Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on September 24, 2026. 18 ECF No. 1. Petitioner has been in immigration detention since August 8, 2026, and alleges 19 he was detained without adequate justification. Id. at 2. 20 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 21 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of 22 justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 23 Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 24 San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to 25 submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 5, 2026, to demonstrate his financial 26 eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 27 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not 28 | || financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent 2 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this 3 ||Court by October 5, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal 4 || Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later 5 ||than October 12, 2026. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 16 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 || approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: September 28, 2026 23 Sa— 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28