Christian Gomez-Dominguez v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 28 the district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding. The court granted the motion and conditionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel granted“Therefore, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Weygandt v. Look, evaluating the petitioner's financial eligibility, the complexity of the legal issues, and the petitioner's ability to articulate claims pro se. The finding that the interests of justice require representation is supported by the recited facts regarding the petitioner's detention status and the nature of the habeas petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant statutory standard and the controlling Ninth Circuit case law (Weygandt). It applies the factors (financial eligibility, complexity, ability to litigate pro se) to the specific facts of the case. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a discretionary appointment of counsel order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTIAN GOMEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-001560-RBM-MMP 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. 6] 13 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 On March 9, 2026, Petitioner Christian Gomez-Dominguez (“Petitioner”), 18 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Application and Declaration to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 (“IFP Motion”) (Doc. 2). The Court granted the IFP Motion because Petitioner “attest[ed] 21 that he [had] no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee” and set a briefing schedule on the 22 Petition. (Doc. 3 at 12.) Petitioner now has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”). (Doc. 6.) 24 “Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the 25 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible 26 person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” 18 27 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 28 the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 1 || of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 2 ||involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). The 3 ||appointment of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. See Terrovona v. 4 || Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 The Court has already found that Petitioner lacks funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee; 6 ||since that time, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody and no circumstances 7 ||would have changed to support a finding that Petitioner can now afford to hire counsel. 8 || Additionally, Petitioner represents that he “has a strong change of success on the merits,” 9 || and that “the complexity of the law on immigration detention and Petitioner’s status as a 10 detained immigrant” strengthen his case for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 6 at 2.) The 11 Court agrees and finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential 12 || validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 13 || 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS 14 || Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel. 15 Counsel for Petitioner shall file a Notice of Appearance on or before March 27, 16 ||}2026. The briefing schedule remains unchanged; Petitioner may still file a reply, now 17 || through counsel, on or before April 10, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. (Doc. 3 at 2.) The Clerk of the 18 Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to Federal Defenders of San 19 || Diego, Inc. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATE: March 24, 2026 : Bitrate teri 3 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28