Sanchez-Rivera v. Archambeault
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se habeas petitioner's motion to appoint counsel based on allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement and risk of COVID-19 infection. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding the legal issues not overly complex and the petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits not evident.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Appointment of Counsel Denied“Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the discretionary standard for appointing counsel in habeas proceedings, which requires an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits and the petitioner's ability to articulate claims pro se. The order recites that the legal issues are not overly complex and that the petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success, which supports the denial. The denial without prejudice is appropriate given the court's finding that the petitioner's assertions regarding the necessity of discovery and an evidentiary hearing were premature. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standard for appointing counsel in a habeas proceeding and applies the factors from Weygandt v. Look. It addresses the petitioner's specific arguments regarding the complexity of the issues and the likelihood of success, finding them insufficient to warrant appointment at this stage. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
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, AMENDED1 ORDER DENYING 13 v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT et al., [ECF No. 5] 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, 18 Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Currently before the Court is 20 Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 5. 21 Habeas petitioners do not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, see Knaubert 22 v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), but a district court has discretion to appoint 23 counsel for a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice 24 so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. See Title 18 25 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 26 27 28 1 || 791 F.2d at 728. “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district 2 ||court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 3 || petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 4 ||involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Jones v. Madden, 5 18-cv-02173-LAB-DEB, 2020 WL 4582688, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). 6 Petitioner does not request counsel to challenge his underlying conviction. Rather, 7 || Petitioner requests counsel based on complaints over the conditions of his present physical 8 ||confinement. Petitioner states: ? Due to the unsanitary conditions at the facility; the excessive and punitive 10 cell searches; and the overly restrictive conditions of confinement, he is held in unconstitutionally punitive conditions. Furthermore, due to Respondent's inability to comply with policy purportedly set in place at the facility to 12 combat the threat of the pandemic, he is at an extraordinary and unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19. 14 || ECF No. 5 at 2. 15 The legal issues presented in the Petition are not overly complex. Based on the 16 || Petition, there is no reason to believe Petitioner cannot sufficiently articulate and prosecute 17 claims he seeks to bring. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown the likelihood of 18 || success on the merits, nor is a likelihood of success evident from the face of the Petition. 19 || Respondents have provided the relevant medical records concerning Petitioner’s condition 20 documents concerning the Imperial Regional Detention Facility’s efforts to protect its 21 ||detainees from COVID-19 exposure and infection. While Petitioner claims he requires 22 || appointment of counsel because discovery is “imperative” and an evidentiary hearing “may 23 necessary,” id. at 4, 9, these assertions are premature. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion 24 || for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: February 16, 2022 KO 27 QF 28 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge