# Warden

> District Court, E.D. California · February 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374739

## Case

- **Full name:** Maria Del Carmen Rodas Lux v. Warden
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374739

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARIA DEL CARMEN RODAS LUX, No. 1:26-cv-01285-DC-SCR
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER
14 WARDEN,
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is representing herself, 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 Petitioner has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 2. In light of
22 the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice
23 require the appointment of counsel for petitioner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also
24 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of
25 counsel is granted.
26 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the
27 ////
28 ////
1 Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be entitled
2 to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will
3 be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted
4 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. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 2) is granted.
9 3. The Court hereby appoints Jacqueline Brown to represent petitioner for the duration of
10 the proceedings in this Court. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to add Jacqueline
11 Brown, University of San Francisco School of Law, Immigration & Deportation Defense Clinic,
12 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, 415-422-3330, jmbrown@usfca.edu, as counsel for
13 petitioner.
14 4. Within 14 days from the date of this order, counsel for petitioner may file an amended
15 § 2241 petition without further leave of court, or may elect to file a notice indicating that the
16 original habeas petition accurately reflects all legal claims and issues in this case. Within 7 days
17 from petitioner's filing, respondent shall file an answer/return to the habeas petition. Petitioner
18 shall have 3 days from the date of respondent’s answer/return to file a reply. If the parties agree
19 on a different briefing schedule, they may submit a joint proposed order to the court based on
20 their stipulation.
21 5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of
22 petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the United
23 States Attorney.
24 6. At the time petitioner files a reply brief, petitioner shall also file an application to
25 proceed in forma pauperis.
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 7. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition,
2 || respondent shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district,
3 || pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which
4 || empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
5 || jurisdictions....”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that
6 || federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by
7 || injunction pending review of an agency’s action”).
8 | DATED: February 23, 2026

10 □

11 SEAN C. RIORDAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374739. Public record. Not legal advice.