Hien Vu v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office, San Diego Field Office, and Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01366
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 HIEN VU, No. 1:25-cv-01366-KES-SAB (HC) 10 Petitioner, ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 11 v. Doc. 4 12 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, 13 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field 14 Office, San Diego Field Office, and CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of Otay 15 Mesa Detention Center, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Hien Vu is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus and a motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 3. This matter was 20 transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the Southern District of 21 California on October 15, 2025. Docs. 7–8. 22 A review of the docket reflects that, before the matter was transferred, the Southern 23 District of California granted petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel and appointed the Federal 24 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. Doc. 4. On October 6, 2025, the parties stipulated that the United 25 States District Court for the Southern District of California lacked jurisdiction and that the matter 26 should be transferred to this Court because petitioner is held at Golden State Annex, which is in 27 the Eastern District of California. Doc. 6. That filing also included petitioner’s unopposed 28 request to relieve the Federal Defenders of San Diego from their representation of him and to 1 | appoint Assistant Federal Defender Carolyn Wiggin of the Federal Defenders for the Eastern 2 | District of California. Doc. 6 at 3. However, because the United States District Court for the 3 | Southern District of California lacked jurisdiction over the matter, that court denied without 4 | prejudice petitioner’s request to appoint Ms. Wiggin as his attorney. Doc. 7-1. 5 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), the Court may appoint counsel for an impoverished 6 | habeas petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whenever the Court “determines that the 7 || interests of justice so require[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In 8 | making this determination, “a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 9 | merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 10 || the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). 11 | Petitioner’s declaration establishes that he does not have sufficient funds to hire a lawyer, see 12 | Doc. 1, Vu Decl. at 11-13, and a review of the petition and motion for temporary restraining 13 | order demonstrate that the claims are sufficiently complex, see Docs. 1, 3. 14 Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), the Court appoints Assistant 15 | Federal Defender Carolyn Wiggin to represent petitioner in this matter. 16 17 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 18 Dated: _ October 15, 2025 4h 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28