Henareh Siavosh v. United States

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 3, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07805
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3

5 JS-6 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 HENAREH SIAVOSH, CASE NO. CV 20-07805-JFW(AS) 12 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v.

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Respondent. 16

17 I. BACKGROUND

19 On August 25, 2000, Henareh Siavosh (“Petitioner”), a federal 20 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an untitled motion (“Motion”), 21 stating that he seeks compassionate release “due to the COVID-19 22 pandemic and under the CARES ACT and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)-2.” 23 (Docket No. 1). 24

25 To the extent Petitioner has filed a motion for release, 26 27 Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice based on 28 Petitioner’s failure to provide any supporting facts. 1 To the extent Petitioner’s Motion can be construed as a 2 Petition for Writ of Federal Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 2241, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice because Petitioner 4 (1) has failed to identify the proper Respondent, the name of the 5 person having custody of him; (2) has failed to plainly state 6 “[t]he statutory or other basis for the exercise of jurisdiction 7 8 by this Court,” in violation of Central District Local Rule 8-1 9 and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a); (3) has alleged vague and conclusory 10 “claims,” in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a) and 8(d); and (4) 11 does not appear to challenge the manner, location or conditions of 12 the execution of his sentence, see Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 13 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). 14

15 To the extent Petitioner is seeking the appointment of 16 17 counsel, Petitioner’s request is DENIED. There is no 18 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action. See 19 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); accord 20 Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The decision 21 to appoint counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial 22 court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 23 v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 24 25 2004)(internal quotation marks omitted). To decide whether 26 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the 27 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 28 1 |} petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 3 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 4 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Based on the sparseness of 5 the allegations in the Motion, the Court cannot conclude that 6 7 Petitioner’s “claims” are potentially meritorious or that the facts g || or legal issues involved in the case are unusually complex. Nothing 9 || in this Order is intended to preclude Petitioner from retaining 10 || counsel on his own. 11 12 Il. ORDER 13 14 1s ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied without

16 prejudice. 17 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 18 DATED: September 3, 2020 19 20 fr A the LL BE: 21 JOHN F. WALTER TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 || presented by: 24 25 /s/ ALKA SAGAR 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28