Mariela Alatorre Rodriguez v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02940
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MARIELA ALATORRE RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02940-RBM-JLB

13 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 14 v. GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 15 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden, et

al., 16 [Doc. 2] Respondents. 17 18 19 On October 30, 2025, Petitioner Mariela Alatorre Rodriguez (“Petitioner”) filed a 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 21 The same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2) and a 22 Financial Affidavit (“Affidavit”) (Doc. 3). Petitioner claims that she is being detained by 23 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of: (1) the 24 discretionary detention procedures set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1226; (2) the Administrative 25 Procedure Act; and (3) the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 1 at 2, 6; Doc. 2 at 4.)1 26 27 28 1 I. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal of the Petition is 3 unwarranted. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) 4 (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 5 conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). 6 Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 7 November 17, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition should not be granted by: (1) filing 8 a written response; (2) making a recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary 9 hearing on the Petition; and (3) filing copies of all documents or evidence identified below 10 or otherwise relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. Petitioner 11 shall file a reply on or before November 20, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed 12 under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further order from the Court. 13 In support of their response, Respondents are ORDERED to file copies of the 14 following documents or evidence, to the extent such copies exist, as exhibits: 15 1. Any documents or evidence reflecting Petitioner’s status as an “applicant for 16 admission” into the United States. 17 2. Any documents or evidence indicating that Petitioner was provided with an 18 opportunity to be heard. 19 Furthermore, both the response and reply shall address whether Petitioner is entitled 20 to the due process rights of a noncitizen seeking initial entry into the United States or the 21 due process rights of a noncitizen with established connections in the United States. 22 Noncitizens “seeking initial entry” who are “on the threshold” of entering the United States 23 have “only those rights . . . that Congress has provided by statute.” Dep’t of Homeland 24 Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). But noncitizens “who have established 25 connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings.” Id.; see 26 also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, 2 attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents MUST 3 NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s 4 resolution of the Petition. 5 II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b). 7 (Doc. 2 at 4.) “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that 8 the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially 9 eligible person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 10 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 11 the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 12 of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 13 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). The 14 appointment of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. See Terrovona v. 15 Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 Petitioner represents that she does not have a job or any savings, financially supports 17 two people, and has only a vehicle worth $5,000. (Doc. 3 [Affidavit] at 1.) Petitioner has 18 sufficiently alleged that she cannot afford to hire counsel. 19 Petitioner also asserts that her petition is likely to succeed on the merits because 20 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 “ignores clear precedent” and violates 21 principles of statutory construction. (Doc. 2 at 5 (citing Torres v. Barr, 976 F.3d 918, 927 22 (9th Cir. 2020) for the proposition that she is no longer an applicant for admission, and 23 arguing that the mandatory detention policy renders superfluous the Laken Riley Act).) 24 However, because she is in custody and “unfamiliar with the law and procedures,” 25 Petitioner is unable to contend with the case’s complex legal issues. Although Petitioner’s 26 immigration attorney assisted her in filing the Petition, Motion for Appointment of 27 Counsel, and Affidavit, her immigration counsel “is unfortunately unable to further assist 28 Petitioner” with the proceedings. (Doc. 2 at 7 n.2; Doc. 1-2 at 1 (Declaration of Isaac 1 || Rodriguez, Petitioner’s Immigration Attorney).) Thus, Petitioner has adequately shown 2 || that she cannot “articulate h[er] claims” without counsel. See Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 4 ||(Doc. 2). The Court APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. (“Federal 5 || Defenders’’) to represent Petitioner. 6 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition 7 ||(Doc. 1), the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2), and this Order to the United 8 States Attorneys’ Office and to Federal Defenders. Counsel for Petitioner shall file a notice 9 || of appearance on or before November 12, 2025. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||} DATE: November 5, 2025 1 Capt Bearnislr, MA oidttsygs D B ON. RUTH BERMUDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28