Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Elvis Saul Nextle filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. The petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and assigned to Judge Janis L. Sammartino. The case caption identifies the respondent as Christopher LaRose, and the matter was docketed as Case No. 26-CV-5970 JLS (DDL).
The court's order addresses the initial procedural posture of the case, noting that the petition is presently before the court and that petitioner alleges ongoing immigration detention. No merits determination has been made regarding the habeas claims, and the court has not yet ruled on subject matter jurisdiction or the substantive grounds for relief. The order is limited to case-management measures designed to preserve the court's ability to adjudicate the petition and to evaluate whether petitioner would benefit from appointed counsel.
The order was filed on October 21, 2026, and signed by Judge Sammartino on October 20, 2026. It represents an early-stage procedural ruling in a pro se immigration habeas matter, reflecting the Southern District of California's established practice of referring such petitions to Federal Defenders for counsel evaluation before any appointment decision is made.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered three principal measures: (1) referral of the petition to Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. for evaluation of whether appointment of counsel would be beneficial to petitioner, with a request that Federal Defenders file a status report or appropriate motion (such as an amended petition) by November 13, 2026; (2) direction to the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of the order and the petition on Federal Defenders; and (3) a stay of transfer prohibiting respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons acting in concert from transferring petitioner outside the Southern District of California pending the court's resolution of the petition.
The transfer restriction cites Doe v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025), for the proposition that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction and while a petition is pending. The court made no ruling on the merits of the habeas petition, the appointment of counsel itself, or the underlying immigration detention. The order expressly frames the referral as an evaluation of whether appointment would be beneficial, not a determination that counsel should be appointed.
The court's directive to Federal Defenders includes a specific deadline of November 13, 2026, for filing either a status report or an appropriate motion, including the possibility of an amended petition. This deadline creates a concrete timeline for the next procedural step in the case while leaving the substantive legal questions—including the lawfulness of petitioner's detention and the court's subject matter jurisdiction—entirely unresolved.
Key Takeaways
- The court referred the § 2241 petition to Federal Defenders for counsel evaluation rather than appointing counsel directly, reflecting a preliminary screening practice for pro se immigration habeas matters.
- A November 13, 2026 deadline was set for Federal Defenders to file a status report or amended petition, establishing the next procedural milestone in the case.
- The court enjoined respondent from transferring petitioner outside the Southern District of California pending resolution, preserving the status quo to protect the court's ability to adjudicate the petition.
- The transfer bar relies on the court's jurisdiction to preserve the status quo during jurisdictional and merits determinations, citing Doe v. Bondi as authority for that principle.
- No merits ruling was made on the habeas petition or the lawfulness of petitioner's immigration detention, and the question of counsel appointment remains open pending Federal Defenders' evaluation.
Why It Matters
This procedural order illustrates the Southern District of California's practice of referring pro se immigration habeas petitions to Federal Defenders for counsel evaluation before making appointment decisions. The transfer injunction protects the court's ability to adjudicate the petition by maintaining petitioner's presence within the district, citing precedent affirming jurisdiction to preserve the status quo during jurisdictional inquiries. The order sets a clear timeline for Federal Defenders' response while leaving all substantive issues—including subject matter jurisdiction, the merits of the detention challenge, and the ultimate question of counsel appointment—open for future determination.
The order also demonstrates the court's use of interim equitable relief in immigration habeas cases to prevent mootness or jurisdictional complications that could arise from a petitioner's transfer outside the district. By prohibiting transfer pending resolution, the court ensures that any future ruling on the petition will have practical effect and that the petitioner remains within the court's territorial reach. This approach reflects a broader judicial concern with maintaining meaningful access to habeas review for detained noncitizens.