Carlos Rios v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office; and Christopher J. Larose, Senior
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Carlos Rios, an immigration detainee, filed a motion for appointment of counsel in his habeas corpus action. The court granted the motion and appointed the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel granted“The Court therefore GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him.” | unsure · procedure The order cites the correct statutory authority (18 U.S.C. § 3006A) and the correct Ninth Circuit standard (interest of justice, likelihood of success, ability to articulate claims pro se). However, the order fails to apply this standard to the specific facts of the case. It does not mention the complexity of the legal issues, the petitioner's ability to litigate pro se, or the likelihood of success on the merits. It simply states that counsel is 'ready and able' and that appointment is 'appropriate.' While the result is likely correct given the context of immigration detention, the reasoning is conclusory and does not demonstrate that the court actually evaluated the required factors. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the relevant statute and the controlling Ninth Circuit standard for appointing counsel in habeas cases. However, it fails to apply that standard to the record. It does not discuss the complexity of the legal issues, the petitioner's pro se capabilities, or the merits of the underlying habeas claim. It relies solely on the fact that the Federal Defenders are 'ready and able' and makes a conclusory finding that appointment is 'appropriate.' This skips the required analytical step of weighing the 'interest of justice' factors.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS RIOS, Case No.: 25-cv-2866-JES-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. APPOINT COUNSEL 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; [ECF No. 3] 15 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of 16 the United States; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and 17 Customs Enforcement; JESUS 18 ROCHA, Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office; and 19 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior 20 Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 21 Respondents. 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 3. 24 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). Id. at 2. 25 Under this statute, the district court may appoint counsel for an impoverished habeas 26 petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whenever “the court determines that the 27 interest of justice so require …” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) 28 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)). The Court “must evaluate both the likelihood of success 1 ||}on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 || complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) 3 || (citations omitted). 4 The Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., is ready and able to assist Petitioner in 5 matter. See generally ECF No. 3. Having carefully considered the arguments raised 6 ||in Petitioner’s motion, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel 1s appropriate in 7 || this case. The Court therefore GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 8 |}and APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent him. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || Dated: October 27, 2025 Smet 12 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28