Saengphet (a.k.a., Saengphet No Last Name, Saengphet NLN) v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of

Opinion

SAENGPHET Case No.: 3:25-cv-2909-JES-BLM (a.k.a., Saengphet No Last Name, Saengphet NLN) ORDER: Petitioner, (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO Department of Homeland Security; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of CORPUS; the United States, TODD M. LYONS,

Acting Director, Immigration and (3) SETTING BRIEFING Customs Enforcement, JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office Directo1 San Diego HEARING; and Field Office, and CHRISTOPHER J.

LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa (4) STAYING REMOVAL OF Detention Center, PETITIONER TO PRESERVE Respondents. JURISDICTION [ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3] Before the Court are Petitioner Saengphet’s (“Petitioner”): (1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”); (2) Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”); and (3) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1-3. The Petition and both motions were filed on October 28, 2025. Id. The Court addresses each filing below. 1. Appointment of Counsel Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). Motion at 1-2. Under this statute, the district court may appoint counsel for an impoverished habeas petitioner seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when “the court determines that the interest of justice so require …” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)). A court “must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., is ready and able to assist Petitioner in this matter. Id. at 2. Having carefully considered the arguments raised in the Motion, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is appropriate. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him. 2. The Petition and TRO Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 3, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4, 2025. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to Show Cause Hearing for Wednesday, November 5, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B. // // // 3. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.’’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this □□□□□□□□ see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). Dated: October 29, 2025 □□□ Sir, Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge