(HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

E.D. California

(HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

DecidedMay 28, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01579

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ((HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 HOANG TUONG NGUYEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01579-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN (ECF No. 3) FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED 15 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. 20 (ECF No. 3.) 21 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 22 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 23 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 24 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 25 so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of 26 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 27 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “has a strong chance of 2 | success on the merits,” “the complexity of the law on immigration detention,” and because 3 | “Petitioner’s status as a detained immigrant” makes presenting his case greatly difficult without 4 | the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) 5 Upon review of the petition and the instant motion, the Court finds that Petitioner appears 6 | to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 7 | articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and 8 | Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of 9 | justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 11 | counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14) Dated: _May 28, 2025 [Jee Fey — 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 HOANG TUONG NGUYEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01579-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN (ECF No. 3) FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED 15 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. 20 (ECF No. 3.) 21 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 22 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 23 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 24 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 25 so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of 26 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 27 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “has a strong chance of 2 | success on the merits,” “the complexity of the law on immigration detention,” and because 3 | “Petitioner’s status as a detained immigrant” makes presenting his case greatly difficult without 4 | the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) 5 Upon review of the petition and the instant motion, the Court finds that Petitioner appears 6 | to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 7 | articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and 8 | Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of 9 | justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 11 | counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14) Dated: _May 28, 2025 [Jee Fey — 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-nguyen-v-field-office-director-san-francisco-field-office-united-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack