Sanchez-Rivera v. Archambeault
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se detainee's motion to appoint counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding regarding conditions of confinement. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding the legal issues were not complex and the petitioner had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel denied without prejudice“Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's two-part test for appointing counsel in habeas proceedings: (1) likelihood of success on the merits and (2) ability to articulate claims pro se given complexity. The court found the issues (conditions of confinement/COVID-19 risk) were not overly complex and the petitioner had not shown a likelihood of success based on the face of the petition and provided records. Denying without prejudice is appropriate as the petitioner can refile if circumstances change or if the case proceeds to a stage where complexity or merit becomes apparent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Weygandt v. Look) and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order. The court addresses both prongs of the test: complexity (finding it low) and likelihood of success (finding it not evident). The denial without prejudice is a standard and appropriate procedural outcome for a premature motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN SANCHEZ-RIVERA, Case No.: 21cv1654-LL-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. APPOINT COUNSEL 14 PALOMAR HEALTH; PALOMAR [ECF No. 5] MEDICAL CENTER ESCONDIDO; and 15 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, 20 Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 21 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Currently before the Court is 22 Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 5. 23 Habeas petitioners do not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, see Knaubert 24 v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), but a district court has discretion to appoint 25 counsel for a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice 26 so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. See Title 18 27 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 28 791 F.2d at 728. “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district 1 |}court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 2 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 3 ||involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Jones v. Madden, 4 || No. 18-cv-02173-LAB-DEB, 2020 WL 4582688, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). 5 Petitioner does not request counsel to challenge his underlying conviction. Rather, 6 || Petitioner requests counsel based on complaints over the conditions of his present physical 7 confinement. Petitioner states: 8 Due to the unsanitary conditions at the facility; the excessive and punitive 9 cell searches; and the overly restrictive conditions of confinement, he is held 10 in unconstitutionally punitive conditions. Furthermore, due to Respondent's inability to comply with policy purportedly set in place at the facility to 11 combat the threat of the pandemic, he is at an extraordinary and unreasonable 2 risk of contracting COVID-19. 13 No. 5 at 2. 14 The legal issues presented in the Petition are not overly complex. Based on the 15 || Petition, there is no reason to believe Petitioner cannot sufficiently articulate and prosecute 16 ||the claims he seeks to bring. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown the likelihood of 17 || success on the merits, nor is a likelihood of success evident from the face of the Petition. 18 Respondents have provided the relevant medical records concerning Petitioner’s condition 19 || and documents concerning the Imperial Regional Detention Facility’s efforts to protect its 20 ||detainees from COVID-19 exposure and infection. While Petitioner claims he requires 21 || appointment of counsel because discovery is “imperative” and an evidentiary hearing “may 22 necessary,” id. at 4, 9, these assertions are premature. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion 23 || for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: February 15, 2022 KO 26 QF | 7 Honorable Linda Lopez 59 United States District Judge