(HC) Iusufzhan v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IUSUPOV IUSUFZHAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00838-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 3) 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Iusupov Iusufzhan (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 19 On July 10, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in custody of the Immigration and 20 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State Annex, located in McFarland, California. Id. 21 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion seeking Court appointment of counsel. 22 (Doc. 3). In support of his motion, Petitioner advances grounds that he has a strong chance of 23 success on the merits as explained in his petition and that given his status as a detained immigrant 24 and the complexity of the law on the issue of immigration detention, he would have great 25 difficulty in presenting the case without the assistance of counsel. Id. at 2. 26 Governing Legal Standard 27 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 1 However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel 2 for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that 3 the interest of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 4 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (prisoners not entitled to appointed counsel “unless the circumstances of a 5 particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.”). 6 Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts require 7 the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where discovery is authorized on a showing of good cause and 8 counsel is deemed “necessary” to facilitate effective discovery; or (2) when the court has 9 determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted for the disposition of a petition. See Habeas 10 Rules 6(a) and 8(c).1 11 Discussion 12 The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary 13 or warranted at this early stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves 14 a complex legal issue, the Court notes that the immigration bond hearing and related issues 15 implicated in this case are not unusual in habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has not 16 shown any exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel at this stage. 17 Petitioner’s proffered difficulties in presenting this case without the assistance of counsel and 18 arising from his status as a detained immigrant are shared with many other habeas petitioners. 19 Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel. The Court will consider 20 appointing counsel to represent Petitioner if the Court later finds good cause to permit discovery 21 or if the Court decides that an evidentiary hearing is needed in this matter. Therefore, at this 22 stage, the circumstances of this case do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary or that 23 failure to appoint counsel necessarily would implicate due process concerns. 24 /// 25 /// 26 27

1 The Rules governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases in the United States Courts are 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 3 | counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ July 11, 2025 | Word bo 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28