(HC)Semenov v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00598
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTEM SEMENOV, Case No. 1:25-cv-00598-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 8) 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Artem Semenov (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 19 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion seeking Court appointment of counsel. 20 (Doc. 8). In support of his motion, Petitioner advances the following grounds: (1) he is incarcerated 21 and therefore is limited in his ability to adequately investigate and present the factual issues relevant 22 to his petition; (2) the legal issue brought in his petition pertaining to immigration detention is 23 complex such that he would have great difficulty presenting the case without the assistance of 24 counsel; (3) an evidentiary hearing could be required; (4) the Court would benefit from the judicial 25 economy in the appointment of counsel; and (5) Petitioner is not able to adequately present his case 26 because he has no background in law or the civil procedures of federal district court, he may not 27 have the funds to pay for postage with respect to other pleadings, and he may encounter trouble receiving Court orders as detainees are frequently transferred between jails. See id. 1 Governing Legal Standard 2 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 3 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel for 5 a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that the 6 interest of justice so require.” (Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B)); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 7 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 8 appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 9 necessary to prevent due process violations.”). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 10 in the United States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where discovery is 11 authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is deemed “necessary” to facilitate effective 12 discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted for the 13 disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c).1 14 Discussion 15 The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary 16 or warranted at this early stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves 17 a complex legal issue, the Court notes that the types of trial court rulings and related issues 18 implicated in this case are not unusual in habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has not 19 shown any exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel at this stage. 20 Petitioner’s proffered difficulties in presenting this case without the assistance of counsel and 21 arising from his lack of funds are shared with many other habeas petitioners. Petitioner was able 22 to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel. The Court will consider appointing counsel 23 to represent Petitioner if the Court later finds good cause to permit discovery or if the Court decides 24 that an evidentiary hearing is needed in this matter. Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of 25 this case do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary or that failure to appoint counsel 26 necessarily would implicate due process concerns. 27

1 The Rules governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases in the United States Courts are appropriately 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 3 | (Doc. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. >| Dated: _ Jume 23, 2025 | bo 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28