Juan Luis Martinez Hernandez v. Warden of the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01772
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 JUAN LUIS MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-01772-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMICUS MOTION TO RECONSIDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 12 v. (ECF No. 25) 13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX ICE DETENTION FACILITY, et al., ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 Respondents. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 15 TO SERVE DOCUMENTS ON FEDERAL DEFENDER 16 17 Petitioner is an immigration detainee who proceeded pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United 19 States magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13.) 20 On February 18, 2026, the Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and 21 directed Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 22 (ECF No. 15.) On April 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce the judgment. (ECF No. 23 18.) On May 4, 2026, Respondents filed a response. (ECF No. 23.) 24 On May 8, 2026, the Federal Defender filed the instant amicus motion and declaration to 25 reconsider appointing an attorney for Petitioner. (ECF No. 25.) There currently exists no absolute 26 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 27 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for 1 | financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 2 | To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on 3 | the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 4 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Upon review of the motion to enforce judgment and the amicus motion for appointment 6 | of counsel, the Court finds that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The amicus motion to reconsider appointing counsel (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. 9 2. Within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of this order, the Federal Defender, as 10 appointing authority for the Eastern District of California, SHALL: 11 a. Identify counsel; and 12 b. Submit a proposed appointment order to the email box of the undersigned. 13 3. Within SEVEN (7) days of the date of service of this order, counsel SHALL FILE a 14 notice of appearance in this case. 15 4. Within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner SHALL 16 FILE either an amended motion to enforce judgment or a reply to Respondents’ response. 17 5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order, via email, on the 18 Federal Defender’s Office at cae_appointments habeas@fd.org. 19 50 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 21 | Dated: _May 14, 2026 _ ef STANLEY A. BOONE 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28