Hussein Awel Ziyad v. Warden Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se immigration detainee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion to appoint counsel. The court denied the motion to appoint counsel without prejudice and ordered the respondent to file a response to the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for appointment of counsel denied without prejudice“Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing counsel in habeas proceedings, which requires an assessment of the likelihood of success and the petitioner's ability to articulate claims. The court found that the petitioner was able to clearly articulate his claims, which is a valid basis for denying the motion at this stage. The denial without prejudice allows the petitioner to refile if circumstances change. |
Petition for writ of habeas corpus not dismissed; response ordered“As for the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. ... Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Respondent shall file a response to the Petition by April 2, 2026.” | agree with court The court correctly determined that summary dismissal was not appropriate because the petition did not appear to be vague, conclusory, or frivolous. Ordering a response from the respondent is the standard procedural next step in a habeas case that survives initial screening. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant legal standards for both the motion for counsel and the initial screening of the habeas petition. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the counsel appointment standard and correctly finds that the petitioner's ability to articulate claims weighs against appointment. The decision to deny summary dismissal and order a response is procedurally sound and supported by the cited authority regarding the high bar for summary dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUSSEIN AWEL ZIYAD Case No.: 3:26-cv-1782-CAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING RESPONSE TO WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY, and 15 (2) DENYING MOTION FOR Respondent. APPOINTMENT OF 16 COUNSEL WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE [Doc. No. 2].
18 19 Hussein Awel Ziyad, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition 20 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], and a 21 motion to appoint counsel, [Doc. No. 2]. 22 Petitioner moves to appoint counsel because he says he is not fluent in English, 23 cannot afford to hire an attorney, and lacks the legal education to contend with immigration 24 issues. [Doc. No. 2.] While there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in 25 habeas proceedings, a district court may provide counsel for any financially eligible person 26 seeking habeas relief under § 2241 when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. 27 § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In making this assessment, courts must evaluate “the likelihood of 28 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 1 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 2 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The appointment of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. 3 See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that 4 Petitioner was able to clearly and cognizably articulate the legal claims both in his habeas 5 petition and his request for counsel. See e.g. Skvortsova v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-0073-AGS- 6 SBC, 2026 WL 597333 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2026). Petitioner’s motion to appoint 7 counsel is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1 8 As for the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. 9 See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal 10 is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 11 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Respondent shall file a response to the Petition by April 2, 2026. The response 13 must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents 14 relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 15 2. Respondent shall serve a copy of the response on Petitioner by April 3, 2026. 16 3. Petitioner may file a reply by April 10, 2026. 17 4. To maintain the status quo, Respondent, their officers, agents, servants, 18 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 19 Respondent SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 20 California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.2 21 22 23 1 Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego to see if a Federal Defender 24 can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 25 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877- 404-9063). 26 2 See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) 28 1 5. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office 2 with a copy of the Petition and this Order. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: March 25, 2026 (Kyge— 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28