Stephan Rytov v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHAN RYTOV, Case No.: 26-cv-2954-JES-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. APPOINTING COUNSEL

14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, [ECF No. 1] 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Stephan Rytov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on May 11, 2026. ECF No. 1. In the 20 Petition, Petitioner also requested that he be appointed counsel. See id. 21 Considering the complexity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues 22 presented in this matter, the Court finds that representation will serve the interests of justice 23 and GRANTS the motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 24 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the Court hereby CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS 25 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as counsel, effective immediately. The Court 26 ORDERS Petitioner to submit a form CJA 23 financial affidavit by Friday, May 22, 2026, 27 to demonstrate his financial eligibility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); Terovolas v. Kincheloe, 28 1 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). If Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., 2 || determines that Petitioner is not financially eligible for appointed counsel, or that it does 3 have the capability to represent him, Federal Defenders of San Diegos, Inc., shall notify 4 || Petitioner and file notice with this Court by Friday, May 22, 2026. If so, Petitioner shall 5 continue unrepresented. If Federal Defenders choose to accept representation, Petitioner 6 || may file an amended Petition no later than Monday, May 26, 2026. 7 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 8 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 9 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 10 || (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 11 || has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 12 || the court.) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 13 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 14 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 15 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 16 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this □□□□□□□□ 17 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 18 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 19 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 20 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 21 || approval from the court). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 15, 2026 24 Awa S-———4,. 25 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 6 United States District Judge 27 28