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 DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, San

Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 15 (ECF Nos. 18, 20, 22) and Customs Enforcement; et al., 16 Respondents. 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). Petitioner since has filed three Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. 18, 22 20, 22). 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 Appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) is in the discretion of the 26 district court unless “the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel 27 is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 28 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). For instance, the district court is obligated to appoint 1 counsel if an evidentiary hearing is required. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 2 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990). Otherwise, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to 3 represent a financially eligible petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests 4 of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to appoint 5 counsel, the district court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as 6 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 7 legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 Petitioner has filed five motions seeking appointment of counsel in this action. See 9 ECF Nos. 5, 11, 18, 20, 22. The Court will consider the arguments Petitioner advances in 10 his most recent Motion (“Mot.,” ECF No. 22). Petitioner argues that the Court should 11 appoint him counsel because he “is having great difficulty interpreting the substantive 12 contents and facts contained in his third amended petition into its corresponding legal 13 arguments that he seeks to present to this Court.” Mot. at 1. Petitioner also claims he is 14 “undergoing unlawful punishment in his continued confinement inside Immigration and 15 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detention, specifically in the midst of active litigation 16 before this Court.” Id. Petitioner has included more than a hundred pages of exhibits in 17 support of his Motion, consisting of grievances he has filed with the Imperial Regional 18 Detention Facility, declarations by other individuals at the facility, news articles, policy 19 briefs prepared by legal organizations, and other documents. See, e.g., Ex. 7, ECF No. 22. 20 After evaluating Petitioner’s Motion and exhibits, the Court has no reason to believe 21 Petitioner cannot sufficiently articulate and prosecute the claims he seeks to bring. A 22 review of the docket reveals that Petitioner has amended his petition multiple times, filed 23 multiple requests for to Court appoint counsel on his behalf, and submitted numerous 24 exhibits. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, 20, 22. His filings are organized and 25 present his arguments with reasonable efficiency and clarity. It appears from these filings 26 that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his case and the legal issues involved. The Court 27 concludes that the failure to appoint counsel at this stage of the proceedings would not 28 amount to a denial of due process. 1 At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not in a position to determine whether 2 || an evidentiary hearing will be required. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (holding “[u]nless 3 || an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion 4 the district court’). Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown the likelihood of success on 5 ||the merits, nor is a likelihood of success evident from the face of the Amended Petition. 6 || See generally Pet. In the event circumstances change materially at a later stage in these 7 || proceedings and provided Petitioner meets the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the 8 Court shall reconsider the issue. Nothing in this Order is intended to preclude Petitioner 9 || from retaining counsel on his own. 10 The Court understands Petitioner’s eagerness for appointment of counsel, as 11 |/evidenced through Petitioner’s multiple Motions to Appoint Counsel; however, the 12 ||interests of justice do not requirement appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, 13 || Petitioner’s Motions to Appoint of Counsel (ECF Nos. 18, 20, 22) are DENIED 14 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: December 13, 2021 tt 17 jen Janis L. Sammartino 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28