Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jeferson Samir Lopez Romero, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California on October 29, 2026. He names the warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center as respondent. As the order describes the petition, he has been in immigration detention since September 23, 2026, and he alleges that he was detained without due process. Those statements are allegations; the order makes no finding on whether the detention is lawful.
The court acted on November 2, 2026, at the very start of the case and before any ruling on the merits. It observed that the petition presents constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues of some complexity and concluded that representation would serve the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The appointment depends on financial eligibility. The court ordered Petitioner to submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit by November 9, 2026, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders determines that he is not financially eligible, or that it lacks the capability to represent him, it must notify Petitioner and file notice with the court by the same date, and Petitioner then continues unrepresented. The court's stated reason for appointment was the complexity of the issues; it did not assess the likely strength of Petitioner's claims.
If Federal Defenders accepts the representation, Petitioner may file an amended petition no later than November 16, 2026.
Separately, to preserve the court's jurisdiction pending a ruling, the court directed that Petitioner not be removed from the District unless and until the court orders otherwise. The order supports this status-quo directive with authority recognizing that federal courts may preserve the status quo while they determine jurisdiction and while a petition is pending, including A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025), a prior temporary restraining order in another case in the same district, and a Western District of Washington decision. The order does not analyze injunction factors and is framed as a measure to preserve jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a conditional appointment of counsel, not a ruling on the habeas petition, so the merits of the due process claim remain undecided.
- The appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., takes effect immediately but depends on Petitioner submitting a CJA 23 financial affidavit by November 9, 2026.
- If Federal Defenders finds Petitioner financially ineligible or lacks the capability to represent him, it must file notice by November 9, 2026, and Petitioner proceeds without counsel.
- If Federal Defenders accepts the representation, Petitioner may file an amended petition by November 16, 2026.
- Petitioner may not be removed from the Southern District of California until the court orders otherwise, a measure the court said is meant to preserve its jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a court in this district may handle a pro se immigration habeas petition at the earliest stage. It can appoint counsel under the Criminal Justice Act's interests-of-justice standard when the legal issues are complex, while requiring a financial eligibility showing before the appointment is settled. Practitioners should note the short deadlines: the affidavit and any notice from Federal Defenders are both due November 9, 2026, and any amended petition is due November 16, 2026. Nothing in the order addresses the merits, the government's position, or whether any release or bond hearing is warranted.
The no-removal directive is the most consequential feature for the detainee, because it keeps him in the District and the case before this court while counsel is sorted out. It remains in place until further order, so its duration depends on later rulings. The order is a non-precedential trial-court ruling that reflects case management rather than a binding holding. Still open are whether Federal Defenders will accept the appointment, the content of any amended petition, the government's response, and the ultimate lawfulness of the detention.