Mohamed A. v. Barr

Background

Mohamed A. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his confinement. The opinion does not decide whether his confinement is lawful or whether the petition should be granted. The respondents are William P. Barr, Kevin McAleenan, Thomas Homan, Peter Berg, and Kurt Freitag.

Orders concerning the petition

The court directed the respondents to file an answer within 20 days of the order. The answer must certify the true cause and proper duration of Mohamed A.’s confinement and show cause—give reasons—why the writ should not be granted. It must include affidavits and exhibits needed to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of his incarceration, a reasoned memorandum of law and fact stating the respondents’ legal position on his claims, and the respondents’ recommendation on whether an evidentiary hearing should be held.

Mohamed A. may file a reply within 20 days after the respondents’ answer is filed. The court stated that no further submissions will be permitted unless the court authorizes them.

Other rulings

The court granted Mohamed A.’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It denied his motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The court explained that a person representing himself in a civil case generally has no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel, and that appointment is discretionary. The court concluded that the petition did not appear significantly more complicated than other immigration-related matters filed in the court and that Mohamed A.’s submissions advocated on his behalf.

Disposition and classification

The order requires further briefing and does not resolve the habeas petition’s merits. It grants the fee-waiver application and denies the motion for appointed counsel without prejudice. Because the order is a procedural step addressing the petition and related requests rather than deciding the legality of the confinement, this is a procedural order. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the order.