Marvin Vail-Jimenez v. Christopher LaRose; Patrick Divver; David Venturella;...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN VAIL-JIMENEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-5533-JES-BJW Petitioner,

ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR

CHRISTOPHER LaROSE; PATRICK

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; and

DIVVER; DAVID VENTURELLA;

MARKWAYNE MULLIN; and TODD (2) CONDITIONALLY APPOINTING BLANCHE,

COUNSEL

Respondents. [ECF No. 2]

Before the Court is Petitioner Marvin Vail-Jimenez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on September 25, 2026.

ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel and motion for temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 2-3.

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 and GRANTS the motion for appointment of counsel. 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 5, 2026, to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 ||3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (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 Diegos, Inc., shall notify Petitioner and file notice with this Court by October 5, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner may file an amended Petition no later than October 5, 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 2025).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2026

Sen,

Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge