Lopez v. ICE Field Office Director

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. C20-1341-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 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