(HC) Keo v. Warden of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00919
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOKHEAN KEO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00919-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 3) 14 WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE ICE PROCESSING CENTER, et al, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 3). 18 Petitioner, an immigrant detainee, has pending a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention without a bond hearing. (See 20 generally Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent 21 him on his Petition because immigration law is complex and his status as a detained immigrant 22 makes it difficult to present his case. (Doc. No. 3). 23 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 24 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th 25 Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to 26 appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court 27 determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. 28 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 1 | in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has 2 | authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for 3 | effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 4 | Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). 5 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 6 | of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. The Petition remains at the early 7 | procedural stage. Indeed, the Court has not yet ordered respondent to respond to the Petition. 8 || Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition and motion for a temporary restraining order 9 | without the aid of counsel. Consequently, the Court finds the circumstances of this case currently 10 | do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 12 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is denied without prejudice. 13 "| Dated: _ August 23, 2024 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28