Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pro se petitioner Juan Andres Mendez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on October 22, 2026, challenging his immigration detention at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Mendez alleged he had been detained since September 9, 2026, without due process. The petition named as respondents the Warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Acting Director of ICE, the Acting Field Office Director for the San Diego Field Office, and the Attorney General of the United States.
The court recognized the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented in the habeas petition. Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent in Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983), the court determined that appointment of counsel would serve the interests of justice. The court also noted its authority to preserve jurisdiction over the matter pending resolution, citing recent district court decisions and the Supreme Court's decision in A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025), regarding the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally appointed the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for Mendez, effective immediately. The appointment is conditioned on Mendez demonstrating financial eligibility by submitting a CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 30, 2026, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b) and Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). If the Federal Defenders determine Mendez is not financially eligible or that they lack the capability to represent him, they must notify Mendez and file notice with the court by October 30, 2026, after which Mendez would continue unrepresented.
To preserve the court's jurisdiction pending resolution of the petition, the court ordered that Mendez shall not be removed from the Southern District of California unless and until the court orders otherwise. The court cited Doe v. Bondi, A.M. v. LaRose, A.A.R.P v. Trump, and Nguyen v. Scott for the proposition that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining subject matter jurisdiction and while a petition is pending. If the Federal Defenders accept representation, Mendez may file an amended petition no later than November 6, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The court conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for a pro se immigration detainee filing a § 2241 habeas petition, citing the complexity of constitutional and statutory issues.
- The appointment is contingent on the petitioner proving financial eligibility via a CJA 23 affidavit by October 30, 2026, and the Federal Defenders' acceptance of the representation.
- The court enjoined respondents from removing the petitioner from the Southern District of California to preserve jurisdiction while the habeas petition is pending.
- If counsel is appointed, the petitioner has until November 6, 2026, to file an amended petition.
- The order relies on statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding appointment of counsel in habeas cases.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural protections afforded to immigration detainees challenging their confinement through habeas corpus petitions in the Southern District of California. The court's willingness to conditionally appoint counsel at the outset of a § 2241 proceeding, coupled with an anti-removal injunction to preserve jurisdiction, reflects a recognition of the high stakes and legal complexity inherent in immigration detention cases. The decision aligns with a pattern in this district of preserving the status quo through equitable relief while jurisdictional and merits questions are resolved.