Souksavath Phakeokoth v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02817
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SOUKSAVATH PHAKEOKOTH, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02817-RBM-SBC

10 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 11 v. GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department

of Homeland Security, et al., 13 [Doc. 2] Respondents. 14 15 16 On October 21, 2025, Petitioner Souksavath Phakeokoth (“Petitioner”) filed a 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 18 The same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2) and a Notice 19 of Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO 20 Motion”) (Doc. 3). Petitioner claims he is being detained by United States Immigration 21 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of “his statutory and regulatory rights, 22 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and the Fifth Amendment.” (Doc. 1 at 2, 8–17.)1 23 Petitioner also claims ICE may not remove him to a third country “without providing an 24 opportunity to assert fear of persecution or torture before an immigration judge.” (Id. at 3, 25 17–21.) 26 27 28 1 I. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Having reviewed the Petition and the accompanying TRO, the Court finds summary 3 dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 4 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the 5 petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) 6 (citation omitted). 7 Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 8 October 29, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition and the TRO Motion should not be 9 granted by: (1) filing a written response; (2) making a recommendation regarding the need 10 for an evidentiary hearing on the Petition; and (3) filing copies of all documents or evidence 11 identified below or otherwise relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the 12 Petition and the TRO. Petitioner may file a reply on or before November 3, 2025 at 4:30 13 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await 14 further orders from the Court. 15 In support of their response, Respondents are ORDERED to file copies of the 16 following documents or evidence, to the extent such copies exist, as exhibits: 17 1. Any documents or evidence reflecting the Government’s determination that 18 Petitioner’s release should be revoked. 19 2. The Notice of Revocation of Release, if any, issued to Petitioner. 20 3. Any documents or evidence otherwise indicating whether Petitioner received 21 notice of the reasons for the revocation of his release. 22 4. Any documents or evidence indicating the Government conducted an informal 23 interview in which Petitioner was allowed to respond to the reasons for the 24 revocation of his release. 25 5. Any documents or evidence indicating that Petitioner was otherwise provided 26 with an opportunity to be heard. 27 6. Any documents or evidence reflecting the Government’s efforts to obtain travel 28 documents for Petitioner prior to his arrest. 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 SHALL 3 NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s 4 resolution of the Petition. 5 The Clerk of the Court is also DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition 6 (Doc. 1), the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2), the TRO Motion (Doc. 3), and 7 this Order to the United States Attorneys’ Office. 8 II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 Petitioner moves this Court to appoint Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. 10 (“Federal Defenders”) as his counsel. (Doc. 2 at 1.) 11 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 12 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 13 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 14 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 15 the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 16 of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 17 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). The 18 appointment of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. See Terrovona v. 19 Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). 20 Here, Petitioner represents that he “lacks the money to hire a lawyer” (Doc. 2 at 3). 21 Petitioner also states that his “wife is the only one who is able to work” and that she works 22 as “a receptionist but does not make enough money to pay for a lawyer on his behalf. (Doc. 23 1, Declaration of Souksavath Phakeokoth [“Phakeokoth Decl.”] ¶¶ 8–9). Petitioner has 24 therefore sufficiently established he cannot afford to hire counsel. 25 Moreover, Petitioner claims he “has a strong claim to release under Zadvydas v. 26 Davis” and that he is “entitled to an evidentiary hearing of any material factual disputes” 27 which may be required. (Doc. 2 at 1, 6.) Plaintiff states that he has schizophrenia, for 28 which he has not been receiving medication, and lacks experience and legal training to 1 ||contend with the complex legal issues implicated in Zadvydas cases, like his, which are 2 ||““grounded in constitutional law, statutory interpretation, administrative procedure, [ |] 3 || habeas law,” and immigration law. (Ud. at 5-6.) 4 Indeed, as Petitioner correctly notes (Doc. 2 at 2), Federal Defenders is routinely 5 || appointed to represent noncitizens in similar immigration habeas proceedings. See Bui v. 6 || Warden of the Otay Mesa Det. Facility, Case No. 3:25-cv-02111-JES-DEB, ECF No. 7 7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025); Hersi v. Mayorkas, Case No. 3:24-cv-0299-JES-DDL, ECF No. 8 1/8, (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2024); Severino-Zuniga v. Att’y Gen., Case No.: 17-cv-0529-AJB- 9 || KSC, 2017 WL 9916027, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2017); Chen v. Napolitano, No. 09cv563- 10 || TEG-NLS, 2009 WL 857628, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2009); Liu v. Chertoff, Civil No. 11 ||}O7CV1654 JAH (RBB), 2007 WL 2429754, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007); Castrillon v. 12 || Dep’t of Homeland Sec., CASE NO. 05CV1552-BEN (NLS), 2006 WL 8448314, at *2 13 ||(S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2006). Thus, Petitioner has adequately shown that he cannot “articulate 14 || his claims” without counsel. See Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954; see, e.g., Phan v. Warden, 15 || Case No. 25-cv-2369-AJB-BLM, ECF No. 8 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2025) (appointing counsel 16 a habeas petitioner in the immigration context whose claims implicated 8 U.S.C. 17 || § 1231(a)(6), Zadvydas, and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2)). 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 19 ||(Doc. 2). Given the organization’s expressed willingness to represent him in this matter 20 || (see id. at 10-11), the Court appoints Federal Defenders to represent Petitioner. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 |}|DATE: October 24, 2025 : Bitrate A ON. RUTH BERMG@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28