(HC) Nguyen v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HOANG TUONG NGUYEN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01579-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN (ECF No. 3) FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Respondents.

18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel.

20 (ECF No. 3.)

21 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

22 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 23 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “has a strong chance of | success on the merits,” “the complexity of the law on immigration detention,” and because | “Petitioner’s status as a detained immigrant” makes presenting his case greatly difficult without | the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 3 at 3.)

5 Upon review of the petition and the instant motion, the Court finds that Petitioner appears | to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to | articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and | Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of | justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of | counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.

B IT IS SO ORDERED.

14) Dated: _May 28, 2025 [Jee Fey — 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE