Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 29, 2026, Ernesto Antonio Deras Pleitez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 in the Southern District of California against the Department of Homeland Security and other respondents. The order does not summarize the petition's factual allegations or legal claims, so this article does not describe what he challenges beyond the court's statement that the petition raises constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues.
On November 2, 2026, the court reviewed the petition and found that representation was necessary given the complexity and potential validity of those issues. It cited Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), in support. The order is a case-management ruling issued at the very start of the case, before any response from the government. It does not decide whether the petition has merit, whether the petitioner is entitled to release or any other relief, or whether the court has jurisdiction over his claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel, effective immediately. The appointment is conditional because the petitioner must submit a CJA 23 financial affidavit by November 16, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. The court cited Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990), and 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) for that requirement. The order does not say what happens if the affidavit is not filed or does not establish eligibility.
The court then set a schedule. The petitioner may file supplemental briefing providing any additional information the court may need to rule on the merits by close of business on November 16, 2026. Respondents must file a response by close of business on November 23, 2026, including copies of all pertinent documents, orders, and transcripts relevant to the petition. The petitioner may file a traverse by close of business on November 30, 2026, and absent further order the matter will be deemed under submission at that time.
The court also ordered that the respondent, its agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are enjoined from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order. The court stated that the purpose is to maintain the status quo so that it can provide a reasoned decision on the request before it. This is an interim measure, not a final ruling. It lasts only until further order, and the order does not analyze likelihood of success or the other usual injunction factors.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated the pro se petition as presenting issues complex enough, and potentially valid enough, to justify appointing counsel, citing Weygandt v. Look.
- The appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego is conditional and depends on the petitioner filing a CJA 23 financial affidavit by November 16, 2026.
- Respondents have until November 23, 2026, to respond with pertinent documents, orders, and transcripts, and the petitioner's traverse is due November 30, 2026, after which the matter is deemed submitted unless the court orders otherwise.
- The order bars removal of the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order, but it is a status-quo measure and not a ruling on the merits.
- Nothing in the order decides the underlying claims, so the merits, jurisdiction, and any final relief all remain open.
Why It Matters
For pro se litigants who file section 2241 petitions against federal immigration authorities, the order shows a court acting within days of filing to secure representation and to freeze removal before the government has responded. The petition was filed on October 29 and the order issued on November 2, and the court conditioned counsel's appointment on a financial showing rather than appointing counsel without any eligibility check.
The order is an unreported district court order, so it carries no precedential weight. It applies existing Ninth Circuit authority and announces no new rule. Its practical importance is limited to this case. The briefing that follows, and the court's later reasoned decision, will determine how the petition is resolved and whether the removal injunction is dissolved or superseded.