Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01414/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01414-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv1414

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL JUDULANG,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1414 – IEG (CAB)

ORDER: 1) GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; 2)

GRANTING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

and 3) ORDERING

RESPONDENTS TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR HABEAS CORPUS

RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§2241 SHOULD NOT BE

GRANTED

[Doc. Nos. 1-3]

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security;

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General;

ROBIN F. BAKER, Director of San Diego

Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; GABRIELA PACHECO,

Office in Charge

Respondents.

On August 2, 2007, Joel Judulang (“petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, Robin

F. Baker, and Gabriela Pacheco (collectively “respondents” or “the government”). (Doc. No. 1.)

Simultaneously, petitioner also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion

for appointment of counsel. (Doc. Nos. 2-3.) 

According to petitioner, he is a native of the Philippines and lawful permanent resident who

entered the respondent’s custody on July 7, 2005 at the ICE El Centro Detention Center and has

Case 3:07-cv-01414-IEG-CAB Document 4 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv1414

remained in custody since that time. (Petition at 2.) An immigration judge ordered petitioner removed

from the United States on September 28, 2005. (Janet Tung Declaration In Support of Motion (“Tung

Decla. ISO Motion”) at ¶ 10.) Petitioner filed a petition for review of the immigration judge’s

removal order, which is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id.) According

to plaintiff, his prolonged detention while his immigration petition is being processed is a

constitutional violation. (Petition at 2-8.) Plaintiff requests an order releasing him from custody under

the supervision conditions set forth 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(3). (Petition at 9.)

A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the petitioner

submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to

pay the fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Petitioner submitted such an affidavit in support of his IFP

application. Petitioner submitted such an affidavit in support of his IFP application. In his affidavit,

petitioner states that he does not have a source of income, any significant savings or assets, and no

funds in his prison account. (Doc. No. 3 at 4.) In light of the fact that petitioner has no real assets or

significant monthly income, the Court finds that he meets the indigency requirements of section

1915(a). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS petitioner’s request for IFP status. The Clerk of Court

shall file the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 

In addition, petitioner moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3006A. (Doc.

No. 3.) The Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., is ready and able to assist petitioner in this matter.

(Tung Decla. ISO Motion ¶¶ 2, 3.) Section 3006A(a)(2)(b) provides that when the court determines

that “the interests of justice so require,” the court may appoint counsel for financially eligible

individuals who are seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241. Having carefully considered the arguments

raised in petitioner’s motion, the court finds that the appointment of counsel is appropriate in this case.

The court therefore GRANTS petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and APPOINTS

Federal Defendants of San Diego, Inc. to represent him. 

Upon receipt of the petition, and finding that the matter is not appropriate for summary

disposition, the Court furthermore ORDERS respondents to show cause why the petition should not

be granted. Respondents shall have until Monday, September 17, 2007 to file and personally serve

an answer to the petition. Petitioner may file a traverse by no later than Tuesday, October 9, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-01414-IEG-CAB Document 4 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1414

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the matter will be taken under submission and decided without oral

argument. Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 14, 2007

HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-01414-IEG-CAB Document 4 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3