Dominguez v. Archambeault

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON DOMINGUEZ, Case No.: 20-CV-1384 JLS (AHS)

12 Petitioner, ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND (2) TO 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, San SHOW CAUSE AND SETTING Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 15 BRIEFING SCHEDULE and Customs Enforcement; et al.,

16 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 5, 11) 17 18 On March 26, 2021, Petitioner Ramon Dominguez, proceeding pro se and currently 19 being held in civil immigration detention at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, filed 20 his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” 21 ECF No. 13). The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 22 No. 3. Petitioner has also filed two Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. 5, 11). 23 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert 24 v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). 25 However, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a financially eligible 26 petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” See 18 27 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 28 § 3006A(a)(2)(B) is in the discretion of the district court unless an evidentiary hearing is 1 required. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). In deciding 2 whether to appoint counsel, the district court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on 3 the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of 4 the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 5 Cir. 1983). 6 Here, Petitioner argues that the Court should exercise its discretion to appoint 7 counsel; however, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. 8 Petitioner’s pro se filings to date indicate he is able to adequately present his claims. 9 Petitioner has filed numerous documents in this case amending his petition and requesting 10 the Court appoint counsel on his behalf. See ECF Nos. 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13. His filings are 11 organized and present his arguments with reasonable efficiency and clarity. It appears from 12 these filings that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his case and the legal issues involved. 13 Further, at this early stage of the proceedings, the Court is not in a position to determine 14 whether an evidentiary hearing will be required. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (holding 15 “[u]nless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the 16 discretion of the district court”). 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 Amended 18 Petition. See generally Pet. In the event circumstances change materially at a later stage 19 in these proceedings, the Court shall reconsider the issue. 20 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions to Appoint of Counsel (ECF Nos. 5, 11) are 21 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 22 Having reviewed the Amended Petition, the Court concludes that summary dismissal 23 is unwarranted at this time. Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW 24 CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 25 July 9, 2021. The Court directs Respondents to serve a copy of the pleading upon the 26 Petitioner concurrently with the filing of the pleading in this Court. Should Petitioner wish 27 to reply, Petitioner must file a traverse or other appropriate pleading no later than August 28 /// 1 2021. At that time, the Court will take the matter under submission and a decision will 2 || be issued without oral argument. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: June 9, 2021 : tt □ 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 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