Alic v. Department of Homeland Security / Immigration Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Denis Alic, a pro se habeas corpus petitioner, moved for the appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), arguing that the complexity of the legal issues and his potential success on the merits required representation. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the petitioner adequately articulated his claims in the existing briefing and that the legal issues were not overly complex.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for appointment of counsel denied without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion without prejudice. (Doc. No. 9.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the two-pronged test from Rand v. Rowland, evaluating both the likelihood of success and the petitioner's ability to articulate claims. The court's finding that the petitioner's briefing was complete and that he demonstrated a sufficient grasp of the claims is a factual determination based on the record before it. Denying the motion without prejudice is the standard procedural outcome when the current record does not support the 'interests of justice' standard, allowing the petitioner to refile if the case becomes more complex. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for appointing counsel in a habeas case and applies it to the specific facts of the petitioner's briefing. It accurately notes that while there is no constitutional right to counsel, the court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the denial based on the current record.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENIS ALIC, Case No.: 25-cv-01749-AJB-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY/IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS 15 (Doc. No. 9) ENFORCEMENT, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Denis Alic’s motion for appointment of counsel 20 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). (Doc. No. 9.) Petitioner, with the assistance of the 21 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., set forth a detailed and well-reasoned motion, 22 arguing that appointment of counsel was in the “interests of justice” because Petitioner will 23 likely succeed on the merits but cannot adequately articulate his claims in the absence of 24 counsel due to the legal complexity of the issues involved. (See generally id.) 25 The writ of habeas corpus is of “fundamental importance” because it “safeguard[s] 26 individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 27 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), as amended (Feb. 19, 1992). Nonetheless, there is no 28 constitutional right to appointment of counsel in § 2241 habeas actions. See Bonin v. 1 || Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 430 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he protections of the Sixth Amendment 2 || right to counsel do not extend to either state collateral proceedings or federal habeas corpus 3 || proceedings.”). However, the district court may appoint counsel for an impoverished 4 habeas petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whenever “the court determines 5 ||that the interest of justice so require[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In making this 6 || determination, “a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 7 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 8 ||the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations 9 || omitted). 10 Upon review of the Petition and Traverse (both of which were completed without 11 || assistance of Federal Defenders), the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient 12 || grasp of his claims, and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate those 13 |/claims adequately. Additionally, the Court finds that the legal issues involved are not 14 || overly complex. Finally, the Court notes that the briefing on the Petition is complete and, 15 the moment, no supplemental briefing has been requested. Based on the current record, 16 || the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is required 17 || by the interests of justice at this stage of the proceedings. 18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion without prejudice. (Doc. 19 || No. 9.) Petitioner is permitted to file a renewed motion for appointment of counsel as his 20 || Petition progresses. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: September 26, 2025 © g 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28