Opinion

Opinion

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 MUKHAMADII ABDUVAKHIDOV, Case No. 1:25-cv-01060-EPG-HC

11 Petitioner, ORDER AUTHORIZING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS

12 v.

13 WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR

DETENTION FACILITY, et al., PETITIONER

14

Respondents. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

15 TO SERVE DOCUMENTS

16 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE

JOINT STATEMENT

17

18 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for a writ of habeas

19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

20 On August 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that

21 his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates his right to procedural due process.

22 (ECF No. 1.) On October 24, 2025, Respondents filed an answer. (ECF No. 13.) The Court

23 ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs given that it appeared Petitioner’s removal order

24 became administratively final and Petitioner’s detention authority had shifted from § 1225(b) to

25 § 1231. (ECF No. 14.) On February 9, 2026, Respondents filed a supplemental brief, confirming

26 that on December 1, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed DHS’s appeal of the

27 grant of withholding of removal and noting that “the detention authority shifted to 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(2)(A), mandatory detention during the removal period. Petitioner will remain subject to

1 this mandatory detention provision until March 1, 2026, under the terms of the statute.” (ECF

2 No. 15 at 1.) That same day, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No.

3 16.)

4 Based on the length of time in which Petitioner has been in immigration detention, the

5 Court hereby authorizes petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

6 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

7 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d

8 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of

9 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice

10 so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of

11 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light

12 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.

13 1983). In light of the apparent shift in authority for Petitioner’s detention, the Court finds that the

14 interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel given the complexity of the

15 legal issues involved.

16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Petitioner is HEREBY AUTHORIZED to proceed in

18 forma pauperis;

19 2. Counsel is APPOINTED for Petitioner;

20 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of the petition, via

21 email, on the Federal Defender’s Office at cae_appointments_habeas@fd.org;

22 4. Within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order, the Federal Defender, as

23 appointing authority for the Eastern District of California, SHALL identify counsel and

24 send counsel’s contact information to the undersigned’s courtroom deputy Felicia

25 Navarro at FNavarro@caed.uscourts.gov, and counsel will be added as counsel for

26 Petitioner;

27 5. Such appointment, as necessary, will be pro hac vice to the CJA Panel and to this District

in this matter only;

1 6. This appointment will be nunc pro tunc to the Federal Defender contacting counsel about

2 this appointment on a date given to the courtroom deputy; and

3 7. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, counsel for Petitioner shall

4 meet and confer with opposing counsel and the parties shall file a joint statement

5 regarding case management and a proposed briefing schedule.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8| Dated: _ February 19, 2026 [Je hey —

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.