Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1565-JES-JLB
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
FAWAZ ALI,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-1565-JES-JLB
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; and
(2) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
[ECF Nos. 2, 3]
Before the Court is Petitioner Fawaz Ali’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), motion to appoint counsel, and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3.
First, Petitioner’s application to proceed IFP reflects that Petitioner is not employed
and does not have money in any accounts. ECF No. 2. The Court finds that Petitioner
cannot afford the $5 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to
Case 3:26-cv-01565-JES-AHG Document 4 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-1565-JES-JLB
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
proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.
Second, considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural
issues presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests
of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.
1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel
and CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel,
effective immediately. If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that it does not
have the capability to represent Petitioner, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall
notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by Monday, March 23, 2026. If Federal
Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later
than Wednesday, March 25, 2026.
To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall
not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v.
Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)
(“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it
has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from
the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June
4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court
hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors,
attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing
Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01565-JES-AHG Document 4 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2