Mahtab Jafarlou v. LaRose

1
3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAJID MAHTAB JAFARLOU,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB
ORDER SCREENING HABEAS
PETITION
On February 6, 2026, Petitioner Majid Mahtab Jafarlou (“Petitioner”), proceeding
pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”).
(Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. 	DISCUSSION
The Court is required to screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they
are subject to summary dismissal. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Summary dismissal is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,”
id., or “where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory.” 	Kourteva v. INS,
151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted).
Case 3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court finds that Petitioner’s claims are vague or conclusory in that they do not
state grounds for relief, such as violations of a statute, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act. 	The
Petition also appears to challenge the merits of Petitioner’s removal order or other
determinations by an immigration judge. 	For example, Petitioner states “wrongful
detention . . . in custody since 10/02/2025 (baseless final removal order) . . . bad conditions
at detention center . . . on 1/26/2026 an application for cancellation of removal was sent to
DHS and immigration court.” (Doc. 1 at 6–7.) The Court does not have jurisdiction over
such claims. 	See Guerrier v. Garland, 18 F.4th 304, 309 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that
binding precedent “would seem to foreclose . . . the petitioner’s request for review of an
immigration 	judge’s 	negative 	credible 	fear 	determination”); 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1252(g)
(precluding jurisdiction over the Attorney General’s decision “to commence proceedings,
adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any [noncitizen]”). 	Therefore,
summary dismissal of the Petition is required.
Petitioner also asks the Court to “appoint FDSI for [his] habeas and submit a petition
for ‘TRO.’” 	(Doc. 1 at 8.) 	The Court construes this as a motion to appoint counsel.
“Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the interests
of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person
who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable to obtain
adequate representation in accordance with this section.” 	Id. § 3006A(a). 	“In deciding
whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 	Weygandt v. Look,
718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
Here, Petitioner includes no information regarding whether he is financially unable
to obtain adequate representation. 	Accordingly, the Motion to Appoint Counsel is
DENIED without prejudice.
Case 3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and
the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
On or before March 13, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended Petition and an
amended motion to appoint counsel addressing the issues identified above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 13, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00790-RBM-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3