Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KANAT ZHAKUOV, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION 14 v. TO APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 3] AND SETTING BRIEFING 15 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department SCHEDULE of Homeland Security, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On January 16, 2026, Petitioner Kanat Zhakuov (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, 20 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) 21 Petitioner also moved for appointment of counsel, but did not sufficiently address the 22 circumstances that would allow the Court to appoint counsel. (See Doc. 2 at 2.) Therefore, 23 the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice and allowed him 24 until February 2, 2026 to file a renewed motion. (Id.) Petitioner timely complied. 25 (See Doc. 3.) 26 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 27 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 28 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 1 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable 2 to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Id. § 3006A(a). “In 3 deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate 4 the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate 5 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 6 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 7 Here, Petitioner represents that he does not have any money because he has “not 8 been working during [his] detention for over a year,” and that neither he nor his family 9 members “have any assets, investment or savings on bank account.” (Doc. 3 at 1.) He has 10 thus sufficiently alleged that he cannot afford to hire counsel. “The Court also finds that 11 representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional, 12 statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev v. Warden, Case No. 3:26-cv-00313- 13 RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 14 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal 15 Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 16 Moreover, the Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. 17 See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal 18 is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 19 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 20 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do 21 not need to identify the constitutional source of the claims raised). 22 Petitioner may file an amended petition on or before February 13, 2026. 23 Respondents shall respond to the amended petition on or before February 20, 2026. Their 24 Response shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination 25 of the issues raised, including any and all relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s 26 immigration history. Petitioner shall file a reply on or before February 24, 2026. The 27 matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further 28 order from the Court. l The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and 2 Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal Defenders of San Diego, 3 ||Inc. Counsel for Petitioner shall file a notice of appearance on or before February 10, 4 || 2026. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATE: February 6, 2026 eet Berrie, oadtagyes > g ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28