Fidel Arostegui-Campo v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03064
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FIDEL AROSTEGUI-CAMPO Case No.: 25-CV-3064 JLS (MMP)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 (ECF No. 2) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Fidel Arostegui-Campo’s Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1), Motion for 20 Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.2), and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 21 (“TRO,” ECF No. 3). Petitioner, a Cuban national, alleges that he has been detained by 22 the United States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs 23 Enforcement (“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since October 21, 2025, 24 when he appeared at the ICE, Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) office for a 25 check in where DHS detained him without any explanation except, “the new 26 administration.” Pet. at 2. Petitioner claims that he is detained by ICE in violation of the 27 Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 28 10–12. On November 13, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 6. 1 Petitioner moves to appoint Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel as the 2 issues are “complex, implicating constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and immigration 3 law.” ECF No. 2 at 1. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), a district court may appoint counsel 4 for an impoverished habeas petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when “the 5 interests of justice so require.” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) 6 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)). The Court “must evaluate both the likelihood of success 7 on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the 8 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 9 1997) (citations omitted). Here, the Federal Defenders of San Diego have stated that they 10 are ready and able to assist Petitioner. See generally ECF No. 2. Petitioner has also 11 demonstrated that his claims are likely to succeed, the issues are complex, and that he 12 cannot afford an attorney. Id.; Pet. at 27. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 13 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, 14 Inc. to represent him. 15 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner 16 SHALL not be removed from the United States until the Court resolves the current 17 Petition. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 18 Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 19 determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 20 pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 21 ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 22 restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 23 agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 24 with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 25 further order of this Court.”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal 26 courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the 27 applicant[] and to preserve . . . jurisdiction over the matter.”). 28 / / / I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||Dated: November 14, 2025 . tt 3 pee Janis L. Sammartino A United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28