Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director

W.D. Washington

Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director

DecidedOctober 13, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01341

StatusUnknown

This text of Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director (Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DANIEL DE JESUS LOPEZ, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. C20-1341-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 12 Respondent.

13 Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 2. There is no 14 constitutional right to appointment of counsel in § 2241 habeas actions; however, the Court may 15 exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests 16 of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a 17 habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well 18 as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 19 issues involved.” Weygardt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Having 20 carefully reviewed the record and considered both factors, the Court concludes that the interests 21 of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s 22 motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 2, is DENIED. 23 1 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the assigned 2 District Judge. 3 DATED this 13th day of October, 2020. 4 A

5 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 6

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DANIEL DE JESUS LOPEZ, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. C20-1341-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 12 Respondent.

13 Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 2. There is no 14 constitutional right to appointment of counsel in § 2241 habeas actions; however, the Court may 15 exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests 16 of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a 17 habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well 18 as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 19 issues involved.” Weygardt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Having 20 carefully reviewed the record and considered both factors, the Court concludes that the interests 21 of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s 22 motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 2, is DENIED. 23 1 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the assigned 2 District Judge. 3 DATED this 13th day of October, 2020. 4 A

5 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 6

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-ice-field-office-director-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack