Chakaphong Chantha v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01052
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAKAPHONG CHANTHA, No. 1:26-cv-01052-DJC-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is representing himself, filed a petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to the undersigned by 19 operation of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 on February 10, 2026. ECF No. 7. 20 Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Upon review by 21 the court, the motion is granted. 22 Petitioner has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. In light of the 23 complexity of the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice 24 require the appointment of counsel for petitioner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also 25 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Jacqueline Brown is hereby appointed to 26 represent petitioner for the duration of the proceedings in this court. The Clerk of Court shall 27 update the docket to add Jacqueline Brown, University of San Francisco School of Law, 28 Immigration & Deportation Defense Clinic, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415- 1 422-3330, jmbrown@usfca.edu, as counsel for petitioner. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a 2 copy of this order along with a copy of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF 3 No. 1) on Jacqueline Brown, jmbrown@usfca.edu. 4 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the 5 Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be entitled 6 to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will 7 be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted 8 by filing an answer/return within 14 days from the date of this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 9 Petitioner’s reply is due 7 days after being served with the answer. 10 If the parties agree on a different briefing schedule, they may submit a joint proposed 11 order to the court based on their stipulation. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 14 2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is granted. 15 3. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to add Jacqueline Brown, University of San 16 Francisco School of Law, Immigration & Deportation Defense Clinic, 2130 Fulton Street, San 17 Francisco, CA 94117, 415-422-3330, jmbrown@usfca.edu, as counsel for petitioner. 18 4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order along with a copy of the § 2241 19 petition on Jacqueline Brown, jmbrown@usfca.edu. 20 5. Additionally, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a 21 copy of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the 22 United States Attorney. 23 6. Respondent’s answer/response to the § 2241 petition is due no later than 14 days from 24 the date of this order. 25 7. Petitioner’s reply is due 7 days after being served with the answer. 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. 1 8. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 2 || respondent shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district, 3 || pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which 4 || empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 5 || jurisdictions....”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that 6 || federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by 7 || injunction pending review of an agency’s action”). 8 | DATED: February 12, 2026

10 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28