Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay v. Director or Manager, El Paso Camp East Montana; Todd Lyons, Director of Immigration; and Pam Bondi, Attorney General

W.D. Texas

Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay v. Director or Manager, El Paso Camp East Montana; Todd Lyons, Director of Immigration; and Pam Bondi, Attorney General

DecidedApril 9, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00849

StatusUnknown

This text of Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay v. Director or Manager, El Paso Camp East Montana; Todd Lyons, Director of Immigration; and Pam Bondi, Attorney General (Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay v. Director or Manager, El Paso Camp East Montana; Todd Lyons, Director of Immigration; and Pam Bondi, Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay v. Director or Manager, El Paso Camp East Montana; Todd Lyons, Director of Immigration; and Pam Bondi, Attorney General, (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

NESTOR HUGO PINEDA GARAY, § § Petitioner, § § v. § No. 3:26-CV-00849-LS § DIRECTOR OR MANAGER, EL PASO § CAMP EAST MONTANA; TODD § LYONS, DIRECTOR OF § IMMIGRATION; AND PAM BONDI, § ATTORNEY GENERAL, § § Respondents. §

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Pro se Petitioner Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay moves for appointment of counsel in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court may appoint representation for a petitioner who is financially eligible and seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when it “determines that the interests of justice so require.”1 When the issues in a habeas petition “are not particularly complex,” and the petitioner’s “pro se brief adequately highlights the issues and the pertinent facts in the record,” then appointment of counsel is not required.2 Similarly, a court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel when “[t]he record amply demonstrates [the petitioner’s] grasp of the issues and his ability to present his case.”3

1 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 2 Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502–03 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Saucier v. Warden, 47 F.3d 426, No. 94-41050, 1995 WL 71331, at *1 (5th Cir. 1995) (denying appointment of appellate counsel in a habeas case where the petitioner “demonstrated that he is capable of representing himself by filing competent pleadings”). 3 Pinson v. Berkebile, 601 F. App’x 611, 616 (10th Cir. 2015). Petitioner’s case 1s not particularly complex, and his filings reflect that he can highlight the issues in and present the facts of his case. Therefore, justice does not require appointment of counsel and the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2]. SO ORDERED. SIGNED and ENTERED on April 9, 2026.

LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

NESTOR HUGO PINEDA GARAY, § § Petitioner, § § v. § No. 3:26-CV-00849-LS § DIRECTOR OR MANAGER, EL PASO § CAMP EAST MONTANA; TODD § LYONS, DIRECTOR OF § IMMIGRATION; AND PAM BONDI, § ATTORNEY GENERAL, § § Respondents. §

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Pro se Petitioner Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay moves for appointment of counsel in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court may appoint representation for a petitioner who is financially eligible and seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when it “determines that the interests of justice so require.”1 When the issues in a habeas petition “are not particularly complex,” and the petitioner’s “pro se brief adequately highlights the issues and the pertinent facts in the record,” then appointment of counsel is not required.2 Similarly, a court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel when “[t]he record amply demonstrates [the petitioner’s] grasp of the issues and his ability to present his case.”3

1 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 2 Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502–03 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Saucier v. Warden, 47 F.3d 426, No. 94-41050, 1995 WL 71331, at *1 (5th Cir. 1995) (denying appointment of appellate counsel in a habeas case where the petitioner “demonstrated that he is capable of representing himself by filing competent pleadings”). 3 Pinson v. Berkebile, 601 F. App’x 611, 616 (10th Cir. 2015). Petitioner’s case 1s not particularly complex, and his filings reflect that he can highlight the issues in and present the facts of his case. Therefore, justice does not require appointment of counsel and the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 2]. SO ORDERED. SIGNED and ENTERED on April 9, 2026.

LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nestor Hugo Pineda Garay v. Director or Manager, El Paso Camp East Montana; Todd Lyons, Director of Immigration; and Pam Bondi, Attorney General, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nestor-hugo-pineda-garay-v-director-or-manager-el-paso-camp-east-montana-txwd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack