(HC) Ortega v. Andrews

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00730
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9

10 JESUS MACIAS ORTEGA, 1:25-cv-00730-HBK (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 12 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13 TANYA ANDREWS, et al., (Doc. No. 3)

14 Respondents.

16 17 Petitioner, who currently is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 18 proceeding pro se, has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner accompanied his Petition with a motion for appointment of 20 counsel. (Doc. No. 3). 21 ANALYSIS 22 Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel due to “the complexity of the law on 23 immigration” and his belief that his Petition has a “strong chance of success.” (Doc. No. 3 at 2). 24 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman 25 v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 26 The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint counsel 27 for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court determines that 28 the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized 5 discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for effective 4 discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Id. at Rs. 6(a) and &(c); see also Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1881 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner was able to competently file 8 his 19-page habeas petition that includes a thorough statement of facts and supporting law concerning his claim for habeas relief. Additionally, the Court finds the circumstances of this 10 case presently do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process i violation. The Court will direct Respondent when responding to the Petition to attach any records 12 necessary for considering the Petition. Thus, it is not clear whether any discovery or an 13 evidentiary hearing is necessary until the Court reviews the record. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1S Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is denied without prejudice. 16 17 1g | Dated: _June 20. 2025 _ slaw Nh foares Zack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28