St. Juste v. Bondi et al

1
3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW
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
JEAN JACKSON ST. JUSTE,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, et
al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 2];
AND
(2) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
On February 17, 2026, Petitioner Jean Jackson St. Juste (“Petitioner”), proceeding
pro se, filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”).
(Doc. 2.) 	On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) and a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 3). Construing the Petition liberally, as the Court must, see
United States v. Jackson, 21 F.4th 1205, 1216 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court finds that
Petitioner appears to argue that his detention is illegal because (1) it has become
unreasonably prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and
(2) there is no significant likelihood of his removal to Haiti in the reasonably foreseeable
future in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001). (See Doc. 1 at 1–2.)
Case 3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW Document 4 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW
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
I. 	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 lists his previous income and current assets and represents that he
does “not have the money to hire an attorney.” 	(Doc. 2 at 2–6.) 	He has therefore
sufficiently alleged that he cannot afford to hire counsel. 	He also represents that he is
unable to litigate his Petition because Otay Mesa Detention Center’s “Law Library has
limited legal information regarding the process of a habeas corpus.” (Id. at 5.) “The Court
also finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of
the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented.” 	Astafev v. Warden, Case
No. 3:26-cv-00313-RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing Weygandt v.
Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 	Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY
APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.
II. 	ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva
v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate
only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or
patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th
Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do not need to identify
the constitutional source of the claims raised).
Case 3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW Document 4 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW
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
Accordingly, Petitioner may file an amended petition on or before March 2, 2026.
Respondents SHALL RESPOND to the amended petition on or before Mach 9, 2026.
Their Response shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the
determination of the issues raised, including any relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s
immigration history. Petitioner may file a reply on or before March 13, 2026. The matter
will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further order from
the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the
TRO Motion (Doc. 3), and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal
Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Counsel for Petitioner SHALL FILE a notice of appearance
on or before February 26, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 23, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01028-RBM-BJW Document 4 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3