Rishabh Prakash Malik v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility,...
Rishabh Prakash Malik v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility,...
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RISHABH PRAKASH MALIK, No. 1:25-cv-1607 TLN AC P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 Petitioner, a self-represented immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the 19 costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28
20 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the 22 Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 In light of the complexity of the 23 legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require the appointment 24 of counsel for petitioner and petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be granted. See 25 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look,
718 F.2d 952, 954(9th Cir. 1983). 26
27 1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241 28 petitions. ] Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of 2 || constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to 3 || show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See
28 U.S.C. § 2243. 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED and 6 || petitioner is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of the filing fee in this 7 || action. 8 2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED and the Federal 9 || Defender is appointed to represent petitioner. 10 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Federal Defender, 11 || Attention: Habeas Appointment. 12 4. Additionally, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a 13 || copy of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241on the 14 || United States Attorney. 15 5. The parties are directed to meet and confer within three days from the service of this 16 | order for the purpose of submitting a joint proposed briefing schedule in this case. 17 6. The parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule to the court no later than 18 || seven days from the date of this order. 19 7. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 20 || respondent shall not transfer petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the 21 || court. See
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal 22 || courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions....”); see 23 || also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co.,
384 U.S. 597, 604(1966) (emphasizing that federal courts have 24 || the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending 25 || review of an agency’s action”). 26 | DATED: November 25, 2025 he, tee. — □□□ te 7 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Rishabh Prakash Malik v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.
- Status
- Unknown