Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Abdisalan Ibrahim Hassan, proceeding without a lawyer, is a noncitizen in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On October 13, 2026, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California against Jeremy Casey, the warden. The order describes the petition as appearing to claim that his detention violates the Due Process Clause, and it records that he asks the court to direct his release. The same day he moved for appointment of counsel.
Judge Linda Lopez issued this short procedural order on October 16, 2026, before any briefing on the merits. The court did not decide whether the detention is lawful, and nothing in the order is a finding on the petition's allegations. The court said only that the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented mean representation would serve the interests of justice, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). It is an unpublished district court order and carries no precedential weight.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion for counsel by conditionally appointing Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., effective immediately. The appointment is conditional. If the Federal Defenders determine that Hassan is not financially eligible, or that they lack the resources to represent him, they must notify him and file notice with the court on or before October 27, 2026. In that event, Hassan continues unrepresented.
The court also found a limited stay necessary under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until the court can issue a reasoned decision and to avoid potential jurisdictional problems if Hassan is removed from the district. The court cited a District of Oregon decision, E-C-R- v. Noem, for the point that courts around the country use that authority to preserve the status quo in pending immigration matters. Paragraph five of the order accordingly enjoins the respondent, his agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and those acting in concert with them from removing Hassan from the United States or the district pending further order. This relief is interim and is not a ruling that removal would be unlawful.
The order sets a schedule. Hassan may file an amended petition by October 30, 2026, which would supersede the original and must be complete in itself. Respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted by filing a written return by November 6, 2026. The return must include relevant documents and address whether an evidentiary hearing is needed. Hassan may file a traverse by November 13, 2026. After briefing, the court will take the matter under submission without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are notified otherwise. The clerk is to send the order and petition to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California.
Key Takeaways
- The order conditionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. for a pro se immigration detainee, and the appointment falls away if the organization reports by October 27, 2026 that Hassan is ineligible or that it lacks resources.
- The court relied on the interests-of-justice standard in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), citing the complexity and potential validity of the issues without resolving them.
- Paragraph five is an express injunction against removing Hassan from the United States or the district pending further order, issued under the All Writs Act to preserve the court's jurisdiction.
- The show-cause order requires a return by November 6, 2026, and the court will decide the petition on the papers unless it notifies the parties otherwise.
- The merits of the due process claim and the request for release remain undecided.
Why It Matters
This is a routine but practically important case-management order. It shows one way the Southern District of California handles a new immigration-detention habeas petition: prompt appointment of federal defender counsel, a briefing schedule of about one month, and an interim bar on removal so the court keeps the ability to rule. The reasoning is brief, and the All Writs Act point rests on a nonbinding out-of-circuit district court decision.
Everything on the merits remains open: whether the detention violates due process, whether release is warranted, and whether a hearing is needed. Also open are whether the Federal Defenders will accept the appointment and whether an amended petition changes the claims. As an unpublished single-judge order, it has no precedential weight and is not a ruling on the lawfulness of the detention.