1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 MARIO CACERAS HERNANDEZ,
8 Petitioner,
9 v. Case No. 2:26-cv-01851-RFB-EJY
10 TODD BLANCHE, et al., ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL
11 Respondents.
12 13 Petitioner Mario Caceres Hernandez, an immigration detainee, has filed a pro se Petition for 14 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1-1). He challenges the lawfulness 15 of his ongoing detention at Nevada Southern Detention Center in the custody of Immigration and 16 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He asserts he is a member of the certified class in Jacobo Ramirez 17 v. Noem,1 --- F.Supp.3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 WL 310090 (D. Nev. Feb. 5, 18 2026) (“Class Member”). Therefore, he may be entitled to relief pursuant to the Court’s grant of 19 partial summary judgment. See Jacobo Ramirez v. Mullin, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 20 WL 879799 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2026). 21 22 I. FILING FEE 23 The Court DEFERS consideration of the filing fee until Petitioner has an opportunity to 24 address it with the assistance of counsel. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring petitioners for writs 25 of habeas corpus to pay a $5 filing fee); cf. also Part II (appointing counsel). To that end, IT IS 26 HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner must either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed 27 in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), by June 29, 2026. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (enabling
28 1 Kristi Noem has since been substituted for Respondent Markwayne Mullin, the current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 petitioners in civil detention to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis). The Clerk of Court is 2 kindly instructed to ATTACH a copy of the Court’s standard IFP Application to this Order. 3 4 II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 5 This Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent habeas corpus petitioners 6 when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2); see also Rule 8(c), Rules 7 Governing § 2254 Cases. That standard is met when the circumstances indicate that appointment 8 of counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 9 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam)). This case 10 necessarily implicates a complex web of detention authority developed specifically for 11 noncitizens. See Torres v. Barr, 976 F.3d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 2020). Given the complexity of the 12 case and Petitioner’s detained status, the Court finds appointing counsel is in the interests of 13 justice. 14 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Federal Public Defender for the United States 15 District of Nevada (“FPD”) is APPOINTED to represent Petitioner. The Clerk of Court is kindly 16 instructed to ADD the FPD to the docket as an “Attorney to be Noticed” using the following email 17 address: ecf_nvchu@fd.org. The Clerk is further instructed to SEND a copy of this Order to the 18 FPD and CJA Coordinator for this division. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the FPD must FILE a notice of appearance, or ADVISE 20 the Court that it cannot represent Petitioner, by June 22, 2026. Appointed counsel will represent 21 Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any appeals or certiorari 22 proceedings, unless appointed counsel is allowed to withdraw. 23 24 III. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 25 This Court has the express authority to “use[,] or authorize the use[,] of suitable discovery 26 procedures” to dispose of a viable habeas petition “as law and justice require.” Harris v. Nelson, 27 394 U.S. 286, 290 (1969) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243); cf. also Rule 6(b), Rules Governing Section 28 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (empowering a court to authorize discovery in 1 habeas corpus proceedings for “good cause”); id. at Rule 1(b) (enabling a court to apply these rules 2 to petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Indeed, it is “the inescapable obligation of the courts” 3 to vindicate their “habeas corpus jurisdiction” by fashioning “methods for securing facts where 4 necessary.” Harris, 394 U.S. at 299. In short, “the power of inquiry on federal habeas corpus is 5 plenary.” Id. at 292 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 321 (1963)). Here, the Court finds 6 that Petitioner has established a prima facie case for relief. But, since Petitioner is presently 7 detained, he lacks the ability to adequately develop his claim(s) in the absence of records that are 8 in Federal Respondents’ custody and control. Cf. id. at 291 (“And this Court has emphasized . . . 9 the fact that the petitioner, being in custody, is usually handicapped in developing the evidence 10 needed to support in necessary detail the facts alleged in [their] petition[.]”). Thus, the Court 11 concludes limited discovery is necessary to properly dispose of this matter. 12 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Federal Respondents must PRODUCE the 13 following records, which are relevant to the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention: (1) I-200 Warrant 14 for Arrest of Alien; (2) Form I-286 Initial Custody Determination; (3) Form I-862 Notice to 15 Appear; (4) Form I-213 Record of Deportable or Inadmissible Alien; (5) all immigration court 16 orders in Petitioner’s removal proceedings or custody redetermination proceedings; (6) documents 17 reflecting any appeal of any immigration court orders by the Department of Homeland Security or 18 Petitioner; (7) transcripts and/or audio recordings of any custody redetermination proceedings; (8) 19 any other records Federal Respondents rely on to justify Petitioner’s detention. Specifically, 20 Federal Respondents must PRODUCE these materials to Petitioner’s Counsel by June 23, 2026. 21 Alternatively, by that same date, Respondents must CERTIFY that, after a diligent search, they 22 have determined that the record(s) are not in their possession, custody, or control. 23 24 IV. BRIEFING 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the following parameters will govern in this case. See Rule 26 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“[T]he judge must 27 order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take 28 other action the judge may order.”): 1 A. SCHEDULE 2 i. Notice Regarding Class Membership: On or before June 23, 2026, 3 Respondents must file a notice which indicates whether they contend Petitioner 4 is, or is not, a Jacobo-Ramirez Class Member. See Jacobo-Ramirez v. Mullin, No. 5 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 WL 879799, at *33 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2026) 6 (“Class Members are: All noncitizens in the U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 MARIO CACERAS HERNANDEZ,
8 Petitioner,
9 v. Case No. 2:26-cv-01851-RFB-EJY
10 TODD BLANCHE, et al., ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL
11 Respondents.
12 13 Petitioner Mario Caceres Hernandez, an immigration detainee, has filed a pro se Petition for 14 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1-1). He challenges the lawfulness 15 of his ongoing detention at Nevada Southern Detention Center in the custody of Immigration and 16 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He asserts he is a member of the certified class in Jacobo Ramirez 17 v. Noem,1 --- F.Supp.3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 WL 310090 (D. Nev. Feb. 5, 18 2026) (“Class Member”). Therefore, he may be entitled to relief pursuant to the Court’s grant of 19 partial summary judgment. See Jacobo Ramirez v. Mullin, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 20 WL 879799 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2026). 21 22 I. FILING FEE 23 The Court DEFERS consideration of the filing fee until Petitioner has an opportunity to 24 address it with the assistance of counsel. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring petitioners for writs 25 of habeas corpus to pay a $5 filing fee); cf. also Part II (appointing counsel). To that end, IT IS 26 HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner must either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed 27 in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), by June 29, 2026. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (enabling
28 1 Kristi Noem has since been substituted for Respondent Markwayne Mullin, the current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 petitioners in civil detention to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis). The Clerk of Court is 2 kindly instructed to ATTACH a copy of the Court’s standard IFP Application to this Order. 3 4 II. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 5 This Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent habeas corpus petitioners 6 when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2); see also Rule 8(c), Rules 7 Governing § 2254 Cases. That standard is met when the circumstances indicate that appointment 8 of counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 9 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam)). This case 10 necessarily implicates a complex web of detention authority developed specifically for 11 noncitizens. See Torres v. Barr, 976 F.3d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 2020). Given the complexity of the 12 case and Petitioner’s detained status, the Court finds appointing counsel is in the interests of 13 justice. 14 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Federal Public Defender for the United States 15 District of Nevada (“FPD”) is APPOINTED to represent Petitioner. The Clerk of Court is kindly 16 instructed to ADD the FPD to the docket as an “Attorney to be Noticed” using the following email 17 address: ecf_nvchu@fd.org. The Clerk is further instructed to SEND a copy of this Order to the 18 FPD and CJA Coordinator for this division. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the FPD must FILE a notice of appearance, or ADVISE 20 the Court that it cannot represent Petitioner, by June 22, 2026. Appointed counsel will represent 21 Petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any appeals or certiorari 22 proceedings, unless appointed counsel is allowed to withdraw. 23 24 III. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 25 This Court has the express authority to “use[,] or authorize the use[,] of suitable discovery 26 procedures” to dispose of a viable habeas petition “as law and justice require.” Harris v. Nelson, 27 394 U.S. 286, 290 (1969) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243); cf. also Rule 6(b), Rules Governing Section 28 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (empowering a court to authorize discovery in 1 habeas corpus proceedings for “good cause”); id. at Rule 1(b) (enabling a court to apply these rules 2 to petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Indeed, it is “the inescapable obligation of the courts” 3 to vindicate their “habeas corpus jurisdiction” by fashioning “methods for securing facts where 4 necessary.” Harris, 394 U.S. at 299. In short, “the power of inquiry on federal habeas corpus is 5 plenary.” Id. at 292 (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 321 (1963)). Here, the Court finds 6 that Petitioner has established a prima facie case for relief. But, since Petitioner is presently 7 detained, he lacks the ability to adequately develop his claim(s) in the absence of records that are 8 in Federal Respondents’ custody and control. Cf. id. at 291 (“And this Court has emphasized . . . 9 the fact that the petitioner, being in custody, is usually handicapped in developing the evidence 10 needed to support in necessary detail the facts alleged in [their] petition[.]”). Thus, the Court 11 concludes limited discovery is necessary to properly dispose of this matter. 12 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Federal Respondents must PRODUCE the 13 following records, which are relevant to the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention: (1) I-200 Warrant 14 for Arrest of Alien; (2) Form I-286 Initial Custody Determination; (3) Form I-862 Notice to 15 Appear; (4) Form I-213 Record of Deportable or Inadmissible Alien; (5) all immigration court 16 orders in Petitioner’s removal proceedings or custody redetermination proceedings; (6) documents 17 reflecting any appeal of any immigration court orders by the Department of Homeland Security or 18 Petitioner; (7) transcripts and/or audio recordings of any custody redetermination proceedings; (8) 19 any other records Federal Respondents rely on to justify Petitioner’s detention. Specifically, 20 Federal Respondents must PRODUCE these materials to Petitioner’s Counsel by June 23, 2026. 21 Alternatively, by that same date, Respondents must CERTIFY that, after a diligent search, they 22 have determined that the record(s) are not in their possession, custody, or control. 23 24 IV. BRIEFING 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the following parameters will govern in this case. See Rule 26 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“[T]he judge must 27 order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take 28 other action the judge may order.”): 1 A. SCHEDULE 2 i. Notice Regarding Class Membership: On or before June 23, 2026, 3 Respondents must file a notice which indicates whether they contend Petitioner 4 is, or is not, a Jacobo-Ramirez Class Member. See Jacobo-Ramirez v. Mullin, No. 5 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 WL 879799, at *33 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2026) 6 (“Class Members are: All noncitizens in the U.S. without lawful status (1) who 7 are or will be arrested or detained by ICE; (2) who are or will be in removal 8 proceedings before an Immigration Court within the District of Nevada; (3) 9 whom DHS alleges or will allege to have entered the United States without 10 inspection or parole; (4) who are not or will not be subject to detention under 11 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c), 1225(b)(1), or 1231 at the time they are scheduled for or 12 request a bond hearing; and (5) whose most recent arrest by ICE occurred inside 13 the United States and not while arriving in the United States.”). If Respondents 14 contend that Petitioner is not a class member, then they must identify the statutory 15 authority that authorizes Petitioner’s detention. Finally, Respondents shall file the 16 following documents with the Notice: (1) Form I-862 Notice to Appear and (2) 17 Form I-213 Record of Deportable or Inadmissible Alien. 18 ii. Amended Petition: On or before June 29, 2026, Petitioner must file an amended 19 petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the FPD declines to represent 20 Petitioner. Upon reviewing the amended petition, the Court will issue an order to 21 show cause, set a briefing schedule, or dismiss the petition as meritless. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 23 B. FILINGS 24 i. Local Rules 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 will govern the requirements and scheduling of all 25 other motions filed by either party. 26 ii. The Parties shall file all documents and exhibits in accordance with Local Rules 27 LR IA 10-1 through 10-5. 28 iii. The Parties must meet and confer regarding any requests for an extension of 1 deadlines and stipulate to the extension if possible. Any motion for an extension 2 must certify efforts made to meet and confer and indicate the opposing party’s 3 position regarding the extension. Any motion, or stipulation, must comply with 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local Rules IA 6-1, 6-2. 5 iv. The Parties must refrain from including—or must partially redact, where 6 inclusion is necessary—personal-data identifiers from all documents filed with 7 the Court, unless the Court orders otherwise. See LR IC 6-1; see also Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 5.2. 9 10 V. JURISDICTION 11 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, IT IS HEREBY 12 ORDERED that Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States District of 13 Nevada, absent leave of Court. This Court has “express authority under the All Writs Act to issue 14 such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction.” F.T.C. v. Dean 15 Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 608 (1966); Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1007 n.6 (9th Cir. 16 2020) (“Having concluded that [agency action] would interfere with the court’s jurisdiction . . . , 17 the district court properly issued an injunction under the All Writs Act.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1651(a)). Such an injunction is appropriate here. The Supreme Court of the United States has 19 repeatedly held that only one district has jurisdiction over a “core habeas petition:” “the district of 20 confinement.” Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 21 426, 443 (2004)). The Court finds Petitioner’s removal from this judicial district could interfere 22 with its jurisdiction and ability to expeditiously resolve this case and provide appropriate relief. 23 The Court thus finds this Order is warranted to maintain the status quo while the Court adjudicates 24 the Petition. 25 26 VI. SERVICE 27 The Clerk of Court is kindly INSTRUCTED to: 28 1. ADD the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada to the docket as an ] Interested Party. Pursuant to the District of Nevada’s General Order 2026-03 (Feb 2 13, 2026), this constitutes service on all federal respondents under Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 4 2. SEND, through CM/ECF, a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), and this Order, to 5 Counsel for Respondent John Mattos at ahesman@strucklove.com. 6 3. MAIL acopy of the Petition (ECF No. 1-1), and this Order, pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to John Mattos at Nevada Southern 8 Detention Center, 2190 E. Mesquite Ave., Pahrump, NV 89060. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, will be 10 | responsible for serving any facility respondent named in the amended petition. 1] 12 DATED: June 18, 2026. 13
15 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-6-