Viengxai Sihaket v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 VIENGXAI SIHAKET, Case No. 1:26-cv-00891-JLT-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 3) ANNEX DETENTION FACILTIY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is pro se Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 3). 20 Petitioner, who currently is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has pending a 21 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, also docketed on February 2, 22 2026. (Doc. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner claims he was ordered removed on July 22, 1997, released 23 in October 1998 under an Order of Supervision, and was taken back into custody on January 5, 24 2026. (Id. at 2-3). To the extent discernable, Plaintiff claims (1) his continued detention under 8 25 U.S.C. § 1231 violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because there is not a 26 significant likelihood he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future; and (2) any 27 attempt by Respondents to remove him to a third country would be in violation of the Fifth 28 Amendment due process clause, the Eighth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the Convention 1 Against Torture, and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. at 13-16). As relief, the Petition 2 seeks, inter alia, immediate release from custody, and an Order that Respondents may not remove 3 or seek to remove Petitioner to a third country without notice and meaningful opportunity to 4 respond in compliance with the statute and due process. (Id. at 19). 5 Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel due to “the complexity of the law on 6 immigration” and his belief that his Petition has a “strong chance of success.” (Doc. 3 at 2). As a 7 threshold matter, there is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas 8 proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 9 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this 10 court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the 11 “court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also 12 Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 13 (9th Cir. 1984). To make this assessment, courts consider a petitioner’s (a) “likelihood of success 14 on the merits” and (b) “ability ... to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 15 legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 16 Alternatively, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts1 17 require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized discovery upon a showing 18 of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for effective discovery; or (2) when the 19 court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c); see also 20 Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1881 (9th Cir. 1990). 21 As to the likelihood of success, Petitioner contests his current detention pending removal 22 proceedings. To better ascertain the basis of Petitioner’s detention and evaluate Petitioner’s 23 claims, the Court directed Respondent to respond to the Petition. Respondents filed an Answer 24 with attached records necessary for considering the Petition on March 6, 2026, and Petitioner 25 filed a traverse on March 27, 2026. (Docs. 11, 14). The Court’s initial review of the records 26 submitted does not indicate that discovery or an evidentiary hearing is necessary, nor does it show 27 1 The Rules governing section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than 28 those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Id., R. 1(b). 1 | alikelihood of success on the merits for Petitioner at this stage of proceedings. 2 Finally, although Petitioner cites to the complexity of immigration laws, he was able to 3 | competently file his 19-page habeas petition that includes a statement of facts and supporting law 4 | concerning his claim for habeas relief, and a comprehensive traverse in response to Respondent’s 5 | Answer. As a result, Court finds the circumstances of this case presently do not indicate that 6 || appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violation. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is denied without prejudice. 9 | Dated: _ April 16,2026 Wiha Wh. arch Zack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28