Saengphet v. Noem

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAENGPHET Case No.: 3:25-cv-2909-JES-BLM (a.k.a., Saengphet No Last Name, 12 Saengphet NLN) ORDER: 13 Petitioner, (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S 14 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 15 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 Department of Homeland Security; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of 17 CORPUS; the United States, TODD M. LYONS, 18 Acting Director, Immigration and (3) SETTING BRIEFING Customs Enforcement, JESUS ROCHA, 19 SCHEDULE AND MOTION Acting Field Office Directo1 San Diego HEARING; and 20 Field Office, and CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa 21 (4) STAYING REMOVAL OF Detention Center, PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 22 Respondents. JURISDICTION 23 24 [ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3] 25 26 Before the Court are Petitioner Saengphet’s (“Petitioner”): (1) Petition for Writ of 27 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”); (2) Motion for Appointment of 28 Counsel (“Motion”); and (3) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF 1 Nos. 1-3. The Petition and both motions were filed on October 28, 2025. Id. The Court 2 addresses each filing below. 3 1. Appointment of Counsel 4 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). 5 Motion at 1-2. Under this statute, the district court may appoint counsel for an 6 impoverished habeas petitioner seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when “the court 7 determines that the interest of justice so require …” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 8 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)). A court “must evaluate both the likelihood 9 of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in 10 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th 11 Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). 12 The Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., is ready and able to assist Petitioner in 13 this matter. Id. at 2. Having carefully considered the arguments raised in the Motion, the 14 Court finds that appointment of counsel is appropriate. Therefore, the Court GRANTS 15 Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of 16 San Diego, Inc. to represent him. 17 2. The Petition and TRO 18 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 19 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20 3, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 21 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 22 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 23 Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 24 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, 2025. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to Show 25 Cause Hearing for Wednesday, November 5, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 3. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 2 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 3 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 4 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 5 || (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 6 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 7 || the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 8 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 9 ||hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 10 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 11 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this □□□□□□□□ 12 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 13 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 14 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 15 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 16 || approval from the court). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: October 29, 2025 19 □□□ Sir, 20 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28