Enmanuel Alejandro Duran-Montilla v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — l “Whenever the United States magistrate judge
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion to appoint counsel in a habeas corpus case challenging the revocation of his parole. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the petitioner failed to demonstrate financial eligibility or the inability to articulate his claims pro se, and ordered him to file a new motion or proceed without counsel by March 23, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, the Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, which requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success and the petitioner's ability to articulate claims pro se. The order explicitly states that the petitioner provided no information regarding financial inability to obtain representation or inability to articulate claims. Denying the motion without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the petitioner to supplement the record with the required information. |
Petitioner is ordered to file a new motion to appoint counsel or indicate a wish to proceed without counsel by March 23, 2026.“On or before March 23, 2026, Petitioner MUST either: (1) file a new Motion Appoint Counsel addressing the deficiencies identified above; or (2) indicate that he wishes to proceed without counsel.” | agree with court This directive is a standard procedural step following a denial without prejudice for insufficient information. It ensures the case moves forward by requiring the petitioner to either cure the deficiencies or waive the request for counsel. |
The court will not order a response to the Petition at this point.“In light of the likelihood that potentially appointed counsel may file an amended Petition, the Court will not order a response to the Petition at this point.” | agree with court This is a discretionary case management decision. Given that the petitioner is pro se and has requested counsel, and that counsel might file an amended petition, it is efficient to hold off on requiring a response from respondents until the status of representation and the final form of the petition are clearer. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant statutory and case law standards for appointing counsel in a habeas case. It accurately notes the deficiencies in the petitioner's motion (lack of financial information and lack of showing of inability to proceed pro se) and applies the correct procedural remedy (denial without prejudice). The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENMANUEL ALEJANDRO DURAN- Case No.: 3:26-cv-01336-RBM-DDL MONTILLA, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Petitioner, 13 PREJUDICE MOTION TO v. APPOINT COUNSEL 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On March 2, 2026, Petitioner Enmanuel Alejandro Duran-Montilla (“Petitioner”), 19 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner argues 20 that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “failed to comply with regulations when 21 revoking [his] parole,” thereby violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth 22 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id. at 4, 9–13.) Petitioner also represents that he 23 “spoke to a lawyer from Federal Defenders who said they would be willing to represent 24 [him] if this Court appointed them,” and “officially request[s] to appoint Federal Defenders 25 to represent [him].” (Id. at 5.) The Court construes this as a Motion to Appoint Counsel. 26 Because there is insufficient information for the Court to resolve it, the Motion to Appoint 27 Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity 28 to file another motion to appoint counsel. l “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 2 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 3 ||person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 4 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable 5 ||to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” Jd. § 3006A(a). “In 6 || deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate 7 || the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate 8 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 9 || Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 10 Here, Petitioner includes no information regarding whether he is financially unable 11 obtain adequate representation. Nor does he represent that he is unable to articulate his 12 ||claims without counsel. Accordingly, the Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without 13 prejudice. On or before March 23, 2026, Petitioner MUST either: (1) file a new Motion 14 Appoint Counsel addressing the deficiencies identified above; or (2) indicate that he 15 || wishes to proceed without counsel. 16 In light of the likelihood that potentially appointed counsel may file an amended 17 || Petition, the Court will not order a response to the Petition at this point. The Court will 18 |/issue a further order after it receives Petitioner’s filing. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || DATE: March 9, 2026 □□ teceta Mater: 9 ON. RUTH BERM@GDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28