Castro Gomez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director

Background

Jose Catarino Castro Gomez, who was being held in immigration custody at the Yuba County Jail, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention without a hearing. He represented himself. The court identified Erik Bonnar, the Acting Director of the San Francisco Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as the proper respondent for purposes of the case’s jurisdiction.

Rulings on Motions

The court granted Gomez’s motions to proceed without paying filing fees, identified as docket numbers 2 and 6. It denied his motion for appointment of counsel, docket number 3. The court explained that there is no automatic right to a lawyer in a habeas case and found that due-process concerns and the interests of justice did not require appointed counsel at that time. The denial was without prejudice to the court’s own later reconsideration if review of the merits showed that counsel was necessary.

Order to Show Cause and Next Steps

The court stated that the petition did not appear clearly meritless and issued an order requiring a response. Within 60 days of the order, the respondents must file an answer explaining why the requested writ should not issue, along with relevant portions of the record. Instead of an answer, the respondents may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Gomez may respond to an answer within 30 days after receiving it, or respond to a dismissal motion under the deadlines stated in the order.

The order also requires Gomez to keep the court informed of address changes, comply with court deadlines, and send copies of his court filings to the respondents’ lawyer. The order terminated docket numbers 2, 3, and 6. It did not decide whether Gomez’s detention was unconstitutional or whether he was entitled to the requested writ.