1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSCAR PAZ-VALENZUELA, No. 1:25-cv-01834-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 3) 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Oscar Paz-Valenzuela (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under

and request 19 for injunctive relief. (Doc. 1). On December 12, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in 20 custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at Golden State Annex in McFarland, 21 located in Kern County, California, which is where he is currently incarcerated.

. 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.

. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Governing Legal Standard 2 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 3 Thompson,

(1991); Bonin v. Vasquez,

(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,

, 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 and related issues implicated in this 17 case are not unusual in habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown any exceptional 18 circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel at this stage. Petitioner’s proffered 19 difficulties in presenting this case without the assistance of counsel and arising from his status as a 20 detained immigrant are shared with many other habeas petitioners. Petitioner was able to file his 21 habeas petition without the aid of counsel. The Court will consider appointing counsel to represent 22 Petitioner if the Court later finds good cause to permit discovery or if the Court decides that an 23 evidentiary hearing is needed in this matter. Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of this case 24 do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary or that failure to appoint counsel necessarily 25 would implicate due process concerns. 26 27 1 The Rules governing

cases in the United States Courts are appropriately 28 applied to proceedings pursuant to

. Habeas Rule 1(b). 1 Conclusion and Order 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel 3 | (Doc. 3) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 | ITISSO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 15, 2025 | Ww Vv Rr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28