Alcantara v. Warden
- James Oetken
- 1:26-cv-06010
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Alcantara v. Warden: Judge Oetken directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for the detained habeas petitioner.
Daniel Hilario Alcantara, who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and filed a federal detention challenge through David Hilario Salazar; volunteer attorneys may be asked to represent him.
What happened
Daniel Hilario Alcantara, through David Hilario Salazar, filed a petition challenging his detention by immigration agents, alleging that the government had not made an individualized decision to justify it. The petition was filed under a federal law allowing people to challenge detention.
The court found that volunteer legal representation was appropriate because the case raised complex jurisdictional and other legal questions, and Alcantara’s incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition limited his ability to investigate and present the case. The court did not guarantee that a lawyer would volunteer.
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the Clerk to try to locate volunteer counsel, explained that the court can request but not appoint a volunteer lawyer, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Alcantara v. Warden · No. 1:26-cv-06010
- James Oetken
- July 16, 2026
Background
Daniel Hilario Alcantara filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law used to challenge unlawful detention, through his next friend, David Hilario Salazar. The opinion states that Alcantara is a citizen and national of Mexico and was detained by agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on July 15, 2026. Alcantara alleged that the government had not made an individualized determination justifying his detention, violating his due-process rights.
Request for Volunteer Counsel
The court considered factors from Hodge v. Police Officers for deciding whether to seek volunteer counsel, including the apparent merit of the claim, the need for factual investigation, credibility issues, the litigant’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues.
The court found that these factors favored seeking volunteer counsel. It specifically cited complex jurisdictional and other legal questions related to the location of Alcantara’s detention and said that his incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited his ability to present the case and investigate facts.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney to represent Alcantara. The court explained that it does not have authority to force an attorney to serve and can only request that an attorney volunteer. The court also stated that there is no guarantee that a lawyer will accept the case or that another lawyer will be found if the first volunteer declines. Alcantara was told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer and to notify the court if he had already obtained counsel or did not want the court to seek a volunteer.
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order directed that a copy be mailed to Alcantara and stated that Salazar could receive court documents by email if he completed the electronic-service consent form.
The opinion addresses counsel and appeal-status issues; it does not decide whether Alcantara’s detention violated his due-process rights.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.