Jaskaran Singh v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.
This text of Jaskaran Singh v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al. (Jaskaran Singh v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.) 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 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASKARAN SINGH , Case No. 1.25-cv-1693-DAD-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is representing himself, filed a petition for a writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has filed an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and a motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3. 21 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required showing and is 22 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 23 3, will also be granted. In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court has 24 determined that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. 25 § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The court will 26 appoint the Federal Public Defender to represent petitioner throughout the course of these 27 proceedings. 28 1 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the 2 Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be entitled 3 to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will 4 be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted 5 by filing a return. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 8 2. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. The 9 Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner. 10 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Federal Defender, 11 Attention: Habeas Appointment. 12 4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 13 petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the United 14 States Attorney. 15 5. The parties are directed to meet and confer within three days from the date of this order 16 for the purpose of submitting a joint proposed briefing schedule in this case. The parties shall file 17 a joint proposed briefing schedule no later than seven days from the date of this order. 18 6. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 19 respondent shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district, 20 pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which 21 empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 22 jurisdictions….”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing 23 that federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status 24 quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s action”).
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 28 § 2241 petitions. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ December 2, 2025 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 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
Jaskaran Singh v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaskaran-singh-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-annex-detention-facility-et-caed-2025.