Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Adrian Verduzco Martinez, a federal immigration detainee, filed a consolidated petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 13, 2026, retained counsel Kyle Jordan Howard filed the initial petition and motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the preliminary injunction on March 5, 2026, ordering petitioner's immediate release and enjoining respondents from re-detaining him absent specific statutory and constitutional protections, including a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. Following a subsequent immigration hearing in May 2026, petitioner was re-detained, prompting a separate habeas action that was consolidated with the original case on July 10, 2026. The court construed the second petition as a Motion to Enforce Judgment and directed Mr. Howard to file a status update on his representation.
Mr. Howard clarified his retention was limited to the original habeas petition and initial release proceedings, then filed a formal motion to withdraw on September 2, 2026. Respondents opposed the Motion to Enforce Judgment on July 15, 2026, submitting audio recordings of the May 2026 pre-deprivation hearings. Since July 2026, petitioner filed numerous pro se motions including motions to enforce the injunction, expedite rulings, amend his petition, and two motions to appoint counsel. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ila C. Deiss for further proceedings on October 16, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Mr. Howard's motion to withdraw under Local Rule 182(d), finding good cause because his limited-scope representation concluded when petitioner was released pursuant to the March 5, 2026 preliminary injunction. Petitioner had proceeded pro se since re-detention and explicitly requested appointment of new counsel. The court granted petitioner's motions to appoint counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), determining the interests of justice required appointment given the procedural posture, factual and legal complexities surrounding whether respondents complied with the preliminary injunction during the May 2026 pre-deprivation hearings, and petitioner's ongoing detention. The court appointed the Office of the Federal Defender, or alternatively a CJA panel attorney.
The court denied all remaining pending pro se motions (ECF Nos. 13, 17, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34) without prejudice to renewal by appointed counsel, including the Request for Custody Status Review, Motion to Enforce Judgment, Motion to Enforce Constitutional Limits on Detention, Motions to Expedite, and motions for leave to file amended petitions. The proposed First and Second Amended Petitions were stricken without prejudice. The court ordered that within seven days the appointing authority identify counsel, new counsel meet and confer with opposing counsel on a briefing schedule within fourteen days, and respondent not transfer petitioner outside the judicial district pending further order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Key Takeaways
- Retained counsel's limited-scope representation for initial habeas and release proceedings ended upon petitioner's release, justifying withdrawal even after re-detention.
- The court found the interests of justice required appointed counsel due to complexities in determining whether May 2026 pre-deprivation hearings complied with the March 5 preliminary injunction's requirements.
- All pro se motions were denied without prejudice to ensure orderly administration once appointed counsel reviews the record, including audio recordings of the pre-deprivation hearings.
- The court invoked the All Writs Act to prohibit respondent from transferring petitioner outside the Eastern District of California, preserving jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition.
- Appointed counsel must meet and confer with opposing counsel and file a joint briefing schedule within 14 days of the order.
Why It Matters
This order resolves a critical procedural impasse in a consolidated immigration habeas case where a detainee was released under a preliminary injunction requiring pre-deprivation hearings, then re-detained following hearings whose adequacy is disputed. By appointing the Federal Defender and denying pro se motions without prejudice, the court ensures competent representation for complex factual and legal issues concerning compliance with a federal court injunction in immigration proceedings. The transfer restriction under the All Writs Act safeguards the court's jurisdiction over the petitioner and the habeas petition, preventing mootness through removal from the district.