Toussaint Guerson v. Michael Watkins, Warden of Camp East Montana; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, I.C.E Area Field Office Director; Todd M. Lyons, Acting I.C.E. Director; and Pam Bondi, AG

W.D. Texas

Toussaint Guerson v. Michael Watkins, Warden of Camp East Montana; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, I.C.E Area Field Office Director; Todd M. Lyons, Acting I.C.E. Director; and Pam Bondi, AG

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided April 9, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-00869·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

TOUSSAINT GUERSON, § § Petitioner, § § v. § § MICHAEL WATKINS, WARDEN OF § No. 3:26-CV-00869-LS CAMP EAST MONTANA; MARY DE § ANDA-YBARRA, I.C.E AREA FIELD § OFFICE DIRECTOR; TODD M. § LYONS, ACTING I.C.E. DIRECTOR; § AND PAM BONDI, AG, § § Respondents. §

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Pro se Petitioner Toussaint Guerson 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. 3]. 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

TOUSSAINT GUERSON, § § Petitioner, § § v. § § MICHAEL WATKINS, WARDEN OF § No. 3:26-CV-00869-LS CAMP EAST MONTANA; MARY DE § ANDA-YBARRA, I.C.E AREA FIELD § OFFICE DIRECTOR; TODD M. § LYONS, ACTING I.C.E. DIRECTOR; § AND PAM BONDI, AG, § § Respondents. §

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Pro se Petitioner Toussaint Guerson 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. 3]. SO ORDERED. SIGNED and ENTERED on April 9, 2026.

LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Toussaint Guerson v. Michael Watkins, Warden of Camp East Montana; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, I.C.E Area Field Office Director; Todd M. Lyons, Acting I.C.E. Director; and Pam Bondi, AG, (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Toussaint Guerson v. Michael Watkins, Warden of Camp East Montana; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, I.C.E Area Field Office Director; Todd M. Lyons, Acting I.C.E. Director; and Pam Bondi, AG (Toussaint Guerson v. Michael Watkins, Warden of Camp East Montana; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, I.C.E Area Field Office Director; Todd M. Lyons, Acting I.C.E. Director; and Pam Bondi, AG) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related