Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 22, 2026, Michael Catun-Chub Jacinto, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California. The respondents include the warden, Christopher J. LaRose, and others. The order does not describe the specific claims. It says only that the petition presents constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues. The court acted the next day, October 23, 2026, before the government had responded.
After reviewing the petition, the court found it appropriate to require the respondents to file a response. It also found that representation was necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the issues presented, citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Separately, it found that a limited stay was necessary to preserve the status quo so that it could provide a reasoned decision on the pending application. For that step it cited two 2025 district court decisions, E-C-R- v. Noem (D. Or.) and Du v. United States Department of Homeland Security (D. Conn.). Each used the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to bar arrest, detention, deportation, or removal while the court considered the merits of the requested relief.
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 may file either an amended petition or a status report recommending against appointment by close of business October 30, 2026. The order does not say whether the appointment will become permanent.
The court set a briefing schedule. The respondents must respond by close of business November 6, 2026, and must include copies of all pertinent documents, orders, and transcripts relevant to the petition. The petitioner may file a traverse by close of business November 13, 2026. Absent further order, the matter will be deemed under submission at that time. The copy reviewed numbers its decretal paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, so paragraphs 2 and 3 do not appear in the pages examined. This article describes only the provisions that are visible.
The court also enjoined the respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them from removing the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order. The stated purpose is to maintain the status quo so the court can give a reasoned decision on the request before it. The injunction is interim and protective. The court did not rule on the merits, did not order release, and did not decide whether the detention is lawful.
Key Takeaways
- The appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is conditional, and the petitioner may recommend against it in a status report due October 30, 2026.
- The respondents must respond by November 6, 2026, with the pertinent documents, orders, and transcripts. The petitioner may file a traverse by November 13, 2026, after which the matter is deemed submitted absent further order.
- The injunction bars removal of the petitioner from the United States or the district pending further order, and the court tied it to preserving the status quo for a reasoned decision.
- The court relied on Weygandt v. Look for appointing counsel and cited district court decisions applying the All Writs Act for interim protection. The order does not separately analyze the statute or make findings on likelihood of success.
- Nothing in the order resolves the merits. The lawfulness of the detention and of any removal remains open.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished, interim case-management order from a federal district court. It carries no precedential weight and decides no merits question. Its value is as an example of how the court handles a new habeas petition from an unrepresented immigration detainee. The court moved within a day of filing to appoint counsel, set a short schedule that puts the matter under submission about three weeks after filing, and freeze removal while the petition is briefed. The order shows that interim protection against removal can issue before the government has been heard, to keep the court able to decide the petition.
Much remains open. The order does not identify the petitioner's claims, and counsel may amend the petition or recommend against appointment by October 30. The government has not yet responded, so the facts and the authority for any detention are untested. The injunction lasts only until further order, and the court may continue, modify, or dissolve it once it has the briefing. The court has promised a reasoned decision but has not yet issued one.