Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maria Isabel A.S. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Warden of the California City Processing Center and other respondents, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition was docketed as ECF No. 1 and the fee motion as ECF No. 2 in No. 1:26-cv-08128-TLN-JDP in the Eastern District of California. Respondents had already filed an Answer to the Petition, docketed as ECF No. 7, when the court issued this order.
The two-page order, filed October 13, 2026 and dated October 9, 2026, resolved the fee motion and addressed representation. It did not decide the merits of the habeas petition or describe the underlying detention claims. The court abbreviated Petitioner's name to protect sensitive personal information, citing the Judicial Conference's May 1, 2018 memorandum concerning privacy in Social Security and immigration opinions.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that Petitioner had made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Separately, it determined that the interests of justice required appointment of counsel because of the complexity of the legal issues involved. It cited 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), and appointed counsel without identifying an individual attorney in the order.
The appointing authority for the Eastern District of California must identify counsel within seven court days and provide counsel's contact information to the courtroom deputy so the docket can reflect the appointment. If the selected lawyer is not a member of the district's Criminal Justice Act Panel, the order authorizes service as CJA counsel for these proceedings under Local Rule 180(b)(1). If the lawyer is not admitted in the district, the order also authorizes pro hac vice admission for the proceedings, nunc pro tunc to when the appointing authority first contacted counsel.
Within seven court days of the order identifying appointed counsel, counsel must file a reply to Respondents' Answer and/or an amended petition, if appropriate. The Clerk must serve the order, the § 2241 petition, and the Answer on the Federal Defender, Attention: Habeas Appointment. The order therefore establishes the representation and briefing framework for the next stage; it does not grant habeas relief, reject the Answer, or resolve any merits issue.
Key Takeaways
- Petitioner may proceed without prepaying fees because the court granted her in forma pauperis motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- The court appointed counsel based on the complexity of the legal issues and the interests of justice, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Weygandt v. Look.
- The appointing authority has seven court days to identify counsel, and appointed counsel then has seven court days from the identifying order to reply to the Answer and/or amend the petition if appropriate.
- The order authorizes CJA service and, if necessary, pro hac vice admission for appointed counsel, but it leaves the habeas petition's merits unresolved.
Why It Matters
The order ensures that Petitioner can pursue her federal habeas case despite an inability to prepay fees and with court-appointed representation. Its express reliance on the complexity of the legal issues supplies the stated reason for counsel, while its deadlines move the case toward a reply and possible amendment after Respondents' Answer.
The decision is procedural rather than a ruling on detention or entitlement to release. It also accommodates appointment of counsel from outside the district's CJA Panel or bar by authorizing service and admission for the duration of the proceedings, with the pro hac vice authorization reaching back to the appointing authority's initial contact.