MARCOS DOS SANTOS v. WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE DETENTION FACILITY, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS DOS SANTOS, No. 1:25-cv-02047-KES-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 3) 14 WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Marco Dos Santos (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On 19 December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in custody of Immigration and 20 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at Mesa Verde Detention Facility, located in Bakersfield, California, 21 which is where he is currently incarcerated. Id. at 2. 22 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion seeking Court appointment of counsel. 23 (Doc. 3). In support of his motion, Petitioner advances grounds that he has a strong chance of 24 success on the merits as explained in his petition and that given his status as a detained immigrant 25 and the complexity of the law on the issue of immigration detention, he would have great difficulty 26 in presenting the case without the assistance of counsel. Id. at 2. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Governing Legal Standard 2 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 3 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 4 However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel for 5 a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that the 6 interest of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 7 (9th Cir. 1986) (prisoners not entitled to appointed counsel “unless the circumstances of a particular 8 case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.”). Moreover, 9 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts require the Court to 10 appoint counsel: (1) where discovery is authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is 11 deemed “necessary” to facilitate effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an 12 evidentiary hearing is warranted for the disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c).1 13 Discussion 14 The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary 15 or warranted at this early stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves 16 a complex legal issue, the Court notes that the immigration bond hearing and related issues 17 implicated in this case are not unusual in habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has not 18 shown any exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel at this stage. 19 Petitioner’s proffered difficulties in presenting this case without the assistance of counsel and 20 arising from his status as a detained immigrant are shared with many other habeas petitioners. 21 Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel. The Court will consider 22 appointing counsel to represent Petitioner if the Court later finds good cause to permit discovery or 23 if the Court decides that an evidentiary hearing is needed in this matter. 24 Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of this case do not indicate that appointed counsel 25 is necessary or that failure to appoint counsel necessarily would implicate due process concerns. 26 By separate order this same date, the Court has directed Respondents to file a response to the 27 1 The Rules governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases in the United States Courts are appropriately 28 applied to proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas Rule 1(b). 1 | petition and afforded Petitioner 30 days within which to file a traverse or reply. Petitioner may 2 || seek appropriate extensions of time if 30 days is not sufficient and also may renew his request for 3 | appointment of counsel. 4 Conclusion and Order 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 6 | (Doc. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7 \ IT ISSO ORDERED. 8 Dated: _ December 31, 2025 | Ww Vv Ry 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28