(HC) Mousa v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMED SALADDIN MOUSA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01164-LJO-EPG-HC

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. COUNSEL

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS (ECF No. 30) ENFORCEMENT, et al., Respondents. Petitioner Mohamed Saladdin Mousa is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenges an immigration detainer. On November 21, 2019, the Court received the instant motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 30). There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Upon review of the petition, the instant motion, and Petitioner’s numerous submissions to the Court, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. As it appears that the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,! Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. 11] Dated: _November 22, 2019 [sf ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | noone 7, 2019, the Court issued findings and recommendation recommending dismissal of the petition. (ECF