Bains v. Garland

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00369-RJB-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel in this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action. Dkt. 14 4. A § 2241 petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel unless an evidentiary hearing is 15 required, and if one is not, only if the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; 16 Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 There is an insufficient basis to find an evidentiary hearing is necessary. If the Court later 18 finds an evidentiary hearing is necessary, it will appoint counsel, then, if Petitioner is financially 19 eligible. The Court also finds Petitioner has not demonstrated the interests of justice require the 20 appointment of counsel. He contends he lacks legal training and English is not his native 21 language. This contention applies to virtually all immigration detainees and Plaintiff’s pleadings 22 show he possesses the ability to clearly articulate his claims. Petitioner also claims he is a 23 1 Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder class member, but the claim is conclusory, unsupported, and belied 2 by the pleadings Plaintiff filed. 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 4, is DENIED without

5 prejudice. 6 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to petitioner and the assigned District 7 Judge 8 DATED this 27th day of March, 2023. 9 A 10 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23