Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 16, 2026, petitioner Rutilo Colima Benitez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The petition challenges his immigration detention and potential removal. The court reviewed the petition and determined that the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented warranted the appointment of counsel and a response from the government.
Citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), the court found that representation is necessary given the nature of the claims. The court also determined that a limited stay of removal is necessary to preserve the status quo and the court's jurisdiction while the petition is adjudicated. In support, the court cited E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543 (D. Or. July 16, 2025), and Du v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025), both of which recognized the court's authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction over pending habeas claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the conditional appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for petitioner effective immediately. The court established an expedited briefing schedule: petitioner may file an amended petition or a status report recommending against appointment by October 27, 2026; respondent shall file a response with all pertinent documents, orders, and transcripts by November 3, 2026; and petitioner may file a traverse by November 10, 2026, after which the matter will be deemed under submission absent further order.
Critically, the court enjoined respondent Christopher J. LaRose, his agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them from removing petitioner from the United States or the Southern District of California pending further order of the court. The court relied on All Writs Act authority to maintain the status quo and preserve the court's jurisdiction to provide a reasoned decision on the habeas petition. The order reflects the court's determination that the petition raises potentially valid claims requiring full briefing and counsel assistance before adjudication on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for a pro se habeas petitioner challenging immigration detention.
- An expedited briefing schedule was set with deadlines of October 27, November 3, and November 10, 2026 for amended petition/status report, response, and traverse respectively.
- The court enjoined the respondent from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo.
- The order cites Ninth Circuit precedent and recent district court decisions recognizing judicial authority to stay removal during habeas proceedings.
- The matter will be deemed under submission after the traverse deadline absent further court order.
Why It Matters
This order demonstrates the district court's active case management in immigration habeas proceedings, ensuring that detained noncitizens receive counsel and that the court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional and statutory claims. By invoking All Writs Act authority to enjoin removal, the court follows a growing trend of federal courts protecting their habeas jurisdiction against executive removal actions that would moot pending petitions. The expedited schedule reflects the urgency inherent in detention cases and the court's commitment to prompt resolution.