Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-06041-LL-JLB, Jesus Hernandez-Ruiz, a noncitizen in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 22, 2026, and filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel the same day. He claims that his prolonged detention since May 15, 2026 without a bond hearing is unlawful, and he seeks release or a bond hearing.
By order dated October 26, 2026, the district court addressed both the request for counsel and the risk that the petitioner could be transferred or removed before the court could rule. It concluded that the interests of justice supported appointing counsel given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues, and it found a limited stay under the All Writs Act necessary to preserve the status quo and avoid jurisdictional problems if the petitioner were removed from this district. The order separately enjoins removal from both the United States and this district.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to appoint counsel by conditionally appointing Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. effectively immediately, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Weygandt v. Look. The appointment is conditional: if Federal Defenders determines the petitioner is not financially eligible or that it lacks resources to represent him, it must notify the petitioner and file notice with the court by November 4, 2026, in which case the petitioner would continue unrepresented.
Invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court enjoined the respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them from removing the petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order, expressly to maintain the status quo so the court can provide a reasoned decision. The court relied on authority collecting cases in which courts use the All Writs Act to preserve jurisdiction over pending immigration matters.
The court also set a briefing schedule: the petitioner may file a complete, self-contained amended petition by November 9, 2026; respondents are ordered to show cause by filing a written Return by November 16, 2026, including relevant documents and addressing whether an evidentiary hearing is needed; and the petitioner may file a Traverse by November 23, 2026. The matter will then be taken under submission without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1) unless the parties are notified otherwise, and the Clerk must transmit the order and petition to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Key Takeaways
- The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent a pro se immigration detainee, finding that the complexity and potential validity of his claims made counsel appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
- The appointment is expressly conditional on financial eligibility and available resources, with a November 4, 2026 deadline for Federal Defenders to decline.
- Relying on the All Writs Act, the court enjoined the government from removing the petitioner from the United States or this district to preserve its jurisdiction and the status quo while the habeas petition is pending.
- The order to show cause requires the government to file a Return addressing the merits and whether an evidentiary hearing is needed, but it does not decide the lawfulness of the petitioner's detention.
- The court signaled it would decide the petition on the briefs without oral argument under its local rules unless it later directs otherwise.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how district courts use the All Writs Act to prevent a habeas petitioner's removal from frustrating the court's jurisdiction before the merits can be decided, a practice the court noted has been adopted by courts around the country in immigration cases. It also shows the role of conditional appointment of counsel in § 2241 detention challenges, where petitioners often proceed pro se despite raising potentially meritorious constitutional and statutory claims.
Because the ruling is procedural and interim, it leaves the central question—whether prolonged detention without a bond hearing is unlawful—for resolution after briefing on the order to show cause.