(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

E.D. California

(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 9, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-01812·Unknown

Opinion

MONSURU WOLE SHO, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01812-BAK (HBK) (HC) ) Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION ) FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. ) ) (Doc. No. 3) ) DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD ) AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

On November 12, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 3.) Petitioner has a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¶ 2241 challenging his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement pending before the Court. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to assist him in this action. This same day, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the Petition. There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that 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). A review of the pleadings filed by Petitioner to date show he was able to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel and articulate his claims. And, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the court does not find the issues are “so complex that due process violations will occur absent the presence of counsel.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428-29 (9th Cir. 1993). As noted, this case i: in the early stages of litigation and Respondent’s response to the Petition is not yet due. Based upon the record, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at tk present time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. Dated: _February 9. 2022 Mile. Th fares Hack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

MONSURU WOLE SHO, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01812-BAK (HBK) (HC) ) Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION ) FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. ) ) (Doc. No. 3) ) DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD ) AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

On November 12, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 3.) Petitioner has a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¶ 2241 challenging his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement pending before the Court. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to assist him in this action. This same day, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the Petition. There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that 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). A review of the pleadings filed by Petitioner to date show he was able to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel and articulate his claims. And, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the court does not find the issues are “so complex that due process violations will occur absent the presence of counsel.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428-29 (9th Cir. 1993). As noted, this case i: in the early stages of litigation and Respondent’s response to the Petition is not yet due. Based upon the record, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at tk present time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. Dated: _February 9. 2022 Mile. Th fares Hack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ((HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related