Juan Ramon Alvarado Izarraraz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention...

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Juan Ramon Alvarado Izarraraz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention...

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN RAMON ALVARADO No. 1:25-cv-01774-DJC-DMC (HC) IZARRARAZ, 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE 15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY et. al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition 19 for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

together with an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that Petitioner is unable 21 to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 22 granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a). 23 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of 24 the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 In light of the complexity of 25 the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require the 26 appointment of counsel for Petitioner and Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be

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. 1 granted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look,

718 F.2d 952, 954

(9th 2 Cir. 1983). 3 Because Petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of 4 constitutional rights is proved, Respondent will be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to 5 show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See

28 U.S.C. § 2243

. 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED and 8 Petitioner is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of the filing fee in this 9 action. 10 2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED and The Federal 11 Defender is appointed to represent Petitioner. 12 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Federal Defender, 13 Attention: Habeas Appointment. 14 4. Within seven days of this order, the appointing authority for the Eastern District of 15 California shall identify counsel and send counsel’s contact information to the undersigned’s 16 courtroom deputy Jodi Palmer at [email protected], and counsel will be added as 17 counsel for Petitioner. 18 5. If counsel is not a member of the Eastern District of California Criminal Justice Act 19 Panel, within seven days of this Order the Federal Defender shall file a motion to appoint counsel 20 as CJA counsel pro hac vice. 21 6. Additionally, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a 22 copy of Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241

on the 23 United States Attorney. 24 7. Respondent is directed to file an answer/return within 14 days from the date of this 25 order. If an answer/return is filed, Respondent shall include with the answer/return any and all 26 transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the 27 application. 28 8. Respondent shall request and obtain Petitioner’s complete A-file and provide a copy to 1 | Petitioner’s counsel upon receipt. 2 9. Petitioner’s reply/traverse, if any, is due within 7 days of being served a copy of 3 || Respondent’s answer/return or 7 days after counsel’s appearance, whichever is later. 4 10. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 5 || Respondent shall not transfer Petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending further order of 6 || the court. See

28 U.S.C. § 1651

(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal 7 || courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions .. . .”); 8 | see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co.,

384 U.S. 597, 604

(1966) (emphasizing that federal courts 9 || have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction 10 || pending review of an agency’s action”’). 1] 12 | Dated: December 12, 2025 Ss..c0_, 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Full Case Name
Juan Ramon Alvarado Izarraraz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility et. al.
Status
Unknown