Thai v. Noem

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02436
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAI THAI, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02436-RBM-MMP

12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 13 v. GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 [Doc. 3] Respondents. 16 17 18 On September 17, 2025, Petitioner Hai Thai (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) In his Petition, 20 Petitioner claims that he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 21 (“ICE”) in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 22 (2001) and 8 U.S.C. § 1231; ICE’s own regulations; the Fifth Amendment; and the 23 Administrative Procedures Act. (Id. at 2, 9–17.1) Petitioner also claims that ICE may not 24 remove him to a third country without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Id. 25 at 17–20.) 26 27 28 1 1 The same day, Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Law in 2 Support of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) “(1) reinstating Petitioner’s release on 3 supervision and (2) prohibiting the government from removing him to a third country 4 without an opportunity to file a motion to reopen with an [Immigration Judge].” (Doc. 2 5 at 2.) Petitioner’s TRO largely repeats the allegations from his Petition. (See id. at 4–6.) 6 Petitioner then argues that he meets the requirements for TRO relief, including a likelihood 7 of success on the merits and irreparable harm. (Id. at 6–13.) 8 Petitioner also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, in which Petitioner asks 9 this Court to appoint Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel for Petitioner. (Doc. 10 3 at 1.) Petitioner asserts that he has a strong claim for release under Zadvydas v. Davis, 11 533 U.S. 678 (2001) but that Zadvydas cases are complex and often require an evidentiary 12 hearing. (Id.) Petitioner therefore asserts the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. “is 13 routinely appointed to represent immigrants in bringing Zadvydas claims.” (Id. at 1–2.) 14 I. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 15 Having reviewed the Petition and the accompanying TRO, the Court finds summary 16 dismissal of the Petition and the accompanying TRO is unwarranted at this time. See 17 Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 18 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 19 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). 20 Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than 21 Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. why the Petition and the accompanying TRO 22 should not be granted by: (1) filing a written return; (2) filing copies of all documents, 23 orders, and transcripts relevant to the Petition; and (3) filing a memorandum of law and 24 fact fully stating Respondents’ position and making a recommendation regarding the need 25 for an evidentiary hearing on the Petition. If Petitioner wishes to reply to the return, he 26 may do so by way of a traverse filed no later than Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 4:30 27 p.m.. Unless the Court orders otherwise, this matter thereafter will be taken under 28 submission and decided on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 1 7.1(d)(1). 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court SHALL TRANSMIT to 3 the United States Attorneys’ Office a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the TRO (Doc. 2), and 4 the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3), and this Order. 5 II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 7 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 8 person who … (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 18 9 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 10 the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 11 of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 12 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). The 13 appointment of counsel is then left to the sound discretion of the magistrate judge or the 14 District Court. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). 15 Having reviewed the Petition, the TRO, and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, 16 the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner is correct 17 that Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is routinely appointed to represent immigrants 18 in Zadvydas cases like this one. See e.g., Bui v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention 19 Facility, Case No. 3:25-cv-02111-JES-DEB, ECF No. 7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025); Hersi 20 v. Mayorkas, Case No. 3:24-cv-0299-JES-DDL, ECF No. 8, (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2024); 21 Severino-Zuniga v. Att’y Gen., Case No. 17-CV-0529-AJB-KSC, 2017 WL 9916027, at *2 22 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2017); Chen v. Napolitano, No. 09cv563-IEG-NLS, 2009 WL 857628, 23 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2009); Tran Cam Liu v. Chertoff, Civil No. 07CV1654 JAH 24 (RBB), 2007 WL 2429754, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007); Castrillon v. Dep’t of 25 Homeland Sec., CASE NO. 05CV1552-BEN (NLS), 2006 WL 8448314, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 26 Jan. 31, 2006). 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || DATE: September 22, 2025