Beyene v. Wolf

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01703
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL BEYENE, Case No. 20-cv-01703-BAS-MSB

12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE

14 CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,

15 Respondents. 16 17 Mr. Beyene is a national of Eritrea who seeks release from the custody of United 18 States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending removal. He brought the 19 present action under 28 U.S. § 2241, arguing that he is eligible for release under Zadvydas 20 v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because he has been held in the custody of ICE for more 21 than fourteen months after his removal order and his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. 22 (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Beyene also moves for an appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) 23 The Court may appoint counsel for financially eligible persons seeking habeas relief 24 if “the interests of justice so require.” 28 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether 25 to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood 26 of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro 27 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 28 1 || 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Under the Rules Governing Section 2254 proceedings,! the court 2 appoint counsel “[i]f necessary for effective discovery” or “if an evidentiary hearing 3 |/1s warranted.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rules 6(a), 8(c); Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. 4 The Court finds that further briefing is necessary to determine whether evidentiary 5 issues exist in this case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file an answer 6 || to Mr. Beyene’s Petition (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3) 7 ||no later than October 14, 2020. Petitioner may file a reply no later than November 4, 8 ||2020. Further, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Order on the 9 || United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || DATED: September 22, 2020 ( yi 4 (Hiphanr 6 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || ———_ | The district court may apply the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases to habeas actions filed under 28 27 ||U.S.C. § 2241. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 1(b); Woodall v. Kolender, No. 07-CV-1583 H AJB, 2007 WL || 2406901, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2007) (“The Court . . . has discretion to apply the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to petitioner’s habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). _9.