Jean Carlos Alexi Fiallos Manzanares v. Jose Ortez

• Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00798
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

JEAN CARLOS ALEXI FIALLOS MANZANARES,

Petitioner,

v. No. 25-cv-0798-KWR-KRS

JOSE ORTEZ,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jean Carlos Alexi Fiallos Manzanares’ pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Habeas Petition (Doc. 1) (Petition). Petitioner challenges his continued immigration detention on the ground that he received a favorable Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) decision. Having reviewed the records, the Court finds that Respondents should answer the Petition and will grant Petitioner’s Motion for Service of Process (Doc. 3). The Clerk’s Office will email a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order to Roberto Ortega, the Civil Chief at the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO). That office typically answers § 2241 immigration petitions on behalf of Respondent. Respondent shall file an answer within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order. See Habeas Rules 1(b), 4 (courts have discretion to set a time for respondents to answer a habeas petition). Petitioner also asks the Court to appoint pro bono counsel. See Doc. 4. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas proceeding. See Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir. 2008). “The decision to appoint counsel is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001). Factors guiding such discretion include “the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). Considering these factors, the Court is not persuaded that habeas counsel should be appointed at this time. The issues are presented in a clear manner, and they are not overly complex compared to similar § 2241

petitions. The Emergency Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4) will therefore be denied. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Service of Process (Doc. 3) is GRANTED; and his Emergency Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall forward a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office at the following email address: roberto.ortega@usdoj.gov (Roberto Ortega, USAO Civil Chief). IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondents must answer the Petition within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order; and if Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, he must do so within twenty-one (21) days after the response is filed.

SO ORDERED.

______/S/______________________________ HON. KEA RIGGS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE