Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-5746-JES-SBC
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
MIRELES ORTIZ FEDERICO,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of
Otay Mesa Detention Center,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-5746-JES-SBC
ORDER CONDITIONALLY
APPOINTING COUNSEL
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Mireles Ortiz Federico’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on October 7, 2026. ECF
No. 1. Petitioner has been in immigration detention since September 14, 2026, and alleges
he was detained without due process. Id. at 2.
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 CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of
San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to
submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by October 16, 2026, to demonstrate his financial
eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82
Case 3:26-cv-05746-JES-SBC Document 2 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-5746-JES-SBC
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
(9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., determines that Petitioner is not
financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does not have the capability to represent
him, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this
Court by October 16, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal
Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later
than October 23, 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”);
see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue
injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction
over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-cv-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D.
Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without
approval from the court).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-05746-JES-SBC Document 2 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2