Opinion

Opinion

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Dec 3, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.6%

emphasizing that 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 | federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by 2 || injunction pending review of an agency’s action’’

How later courts described this case

  • emphasizing that 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 | federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by 2 || injunction pending review of an agency’s action’’

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ASHOT OHANYAN, No. 1:25-cv-1661-TLN-SCR

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER

14 WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA CITY

DETENTION,

15

Respondent.

16

17

Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is representing himself, filed a petition for a writ

18

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Based on the length of time in which petitioner

19

has been in immigration detention, the court provisionally authorizes petitioner to proceed in

20

forma pauperis without prepayment of the filing fee in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914.

21

The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the

22

Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 In light of the complexity of the

23

legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require the appointment

24

of counsel for petitioner. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Professor

25

Jacqueline Brown, Director of Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic at the University of

26

27 1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district

court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241

28 petitions.

1 San Francisco School of Law, has agreed to accept appointment in this matter.

2 Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

3 constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to

4 show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6 1. Petitioner is provisionally authorized to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment

7 of the filing fee in this action.

8 2. Jacqueline Brown is appointed to represent petitioner.

9 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order as well as a copy of petitioner’s

10 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Jacqueline Brown,

11 jmbrown@usfca.edu.

12 4. Additionally, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a

13 copy of petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the United States Attorney.

14 5. The parties are directed to meet and confer within 3 days from the date of this order for

15 the purpose of submitting a joint proposed briefing schedule in this case.

16 6. At the time petitioner files a brief or amended petition, petitioner shall also file an

17 application to proceed in forma pauperis.

18 7. The parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule and submit it to the court by

19 emailing it to SCRorders@caed.uscourts.gov no later than 7 days from the date of this order.

20 8. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition,

21 respondent shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district,

22 pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which

23 empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective

24 jurisdictions….”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that

25 ////

26 ////

27 ////

28 ////

1 | federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by

2 || injunction pending review of an agency’s action’’).

3 | DATED: December 2, 2025

4

; .

6 SEAN C. RIORDAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.