Karanvir Thiara v. Christopher Chestnut, Warden of the Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 KARANVIR THIARA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02272-KES-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden of (Doc. 3) the Detention Facility, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pending before the Court is pro se Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, filed on March 18 23, 2026. (Doc. 3). Petitioner, who currently is detained by Immigration and Customs 19 Enforcement (“ICE”), has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 20 2241, also docketed on March 23, 2026. (Doc. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner claims he has been 21 detained in immigration custody for over 2 weeks without a bond hearing in violation of the due 22 process clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. at 2). As relief, the Petition seeks release from 23 custody or, in the alternative, the Court to order Respondent to schedule a hearing before an 24 immigration judge. (Id. at 17). 25 Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel due to “the complexity of the law on 26 immigration” and his belief that his Petition has a “strong chance of success.” (Doc. 3 at 2). As a 27 threshold matter, there is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas 28 proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 1 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this 2 court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the 3 “court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also 4 Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 5 (9th Cir. 1984). To make this assessment, courts consider a petitioner’s (a) “likelihood of success 6 on the merits” and (b) “ability ... to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 7 legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 Alternatively, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts1 9 require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized discovery upon a showing 10 of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for effective discovery; or (2) when the 11 court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c); see also 12 Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1881 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 As to the likelihood of success, Petitioner contests his current detention pending removal 14 proceedings. To better ascertain the basis of Petitioner’s detention and evaluate Petitioner’s due 15 process claim, the Court directed Respondent to respond to the Petition, which is not yet due. 16 Consequently, the Court does not find that Petitioner can show a likelihood of success of the 17 merit at this early stage of the proceedings. Additionally, when directing Respondent to respond 18 to the Petition the Court directed Respondent to attach any records necessary for considering the 19 Petition. Thus, it is not clear whether any discovery or an evidentiary hearing is necessary until 20 the Court reviews the record. 21 Finally, although Petitioner cites to the complexity of immigration laws, Petitioner was 22 able to competently file his 18-page habeas petition that includes a statement of facts and 23 supporting law concerning his claim for habeas relief. As a result, Court finds the circumstances 24 of this case presently do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process 25 violation. 26 //// 27 1 The Rules governing section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than 28 those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Id., R. 1(b). ] Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is denied without prejudice. 3 * | Dated: __April 16, 2026 Wiha Th. Doareh Bick 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28