Abdullah M. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Facility
This text of Abdullah M. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Facility (Abdullah M. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ABDULLAH M., No. 1:25-cv-01972-TLN-JDP 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX FACILITY, 14 Respondents. 15
16 Petitioner Abdullah M..1 (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee who is representing 17 himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Based on the 18 substance of Petitioner’s brief and the relief requested therein, the Court construes Petitioner’s 19 pleading as a motion for a temporary restraining order. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 20 (1976) (stating that pleadings by pro se litigants must be held to less stringent standards than 21 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers). 22 Respondents shall file a response to Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief by 5 p.m. on 23 24 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of 25 the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: Privacy 26 Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change accordingly. 28 1 Monday, December 29, 2025. Any opposition shall provide the Court with copies of all 2 referenced/relevant portions of Petitioner’s A-File and any and all available records related to 3 Petitioner’s allegations. 4 Pending the Court’s ruling on this petition, Respondents shall not take any action to 5 transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 608 (1966) 6 (acknowledging the Court’s “express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary 7 injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction”). 8 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. Petitioner has 9 also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) In light of the complexity of the 10 legal issues involved, the Court has determined that the interests of justice require the 11 appointment of counsel for Petitioner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. 12 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Within seven days from the date of this order, the 13 appointing authority for the Eastern District of California shall identify counsel and send 14 counsel’s contact information to Michele Krueger, Courtroom Deputy for Chief Judge Troy 15 Nunley, via email at mkrueger@caed.uscourts.gov, who shall update the docket to reflect 16 counsel’s appointment. If counsel is not a member of the Eastern District of California Criminal 17 Justice Act (“CJA”) Panel, the Court hereby authorizes them to serve as CJA counsel for 18 petitioner for the duration of the proceedings in this Court pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(1). 19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Respondents shall file a response to Petitioner’s request for immediate injunctive relief 21 by 5 p.m. on Monday, December 29, 2025; 22 2. In order to ensure this Court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 23 Respondent shall not transfer Petitioner to another detention center outside of this 24 judicial district, pending further order of the Court; 25 3. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 26 4. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is granted; Within seven days from 27 the date of this order, the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California 28 shall identify counsel and send counsel’s contact information to Michele Krueger, 1 Courtroom Deputy for Chief Judge Troy Nunley, who shall update the docket to 2 reflect counsel’s appointment; 3 5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Federal Defender, 4 Attention: Habeas Appointment, along with a copy of the § 2241 petition; 5 6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 6 Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on 7 the United States Attorney; and 8 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to only list Petitioner’s first name 9 and last initial. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Date: December 23, 2025 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Abdullah M. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdullah-m-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-annex-facility-caed-2025.