Lavabi v. Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LATU KAMISESE LAVABI, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-1133-BHS-MLP 10 v. ORDER DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner Latu Kamisese Lavabi has filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel in this matter. (Dkt. # 6.) There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in § 2241 habeas actions. However, the Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district 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.” Weygardt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

1 A review of Petitioner’s habeas petition reveals that he has adequately articulated his claims such that Respondent can file a viable response to the substance of those claims. As to the question of whether Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his petition, there is simply insufficient information in the record at this juncture for the Court to make such a determination.

5 In sum, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. # 6) is DENIED, but this denial is without prejudice to Petitioner renewing his request for counsel once the record is more fully developed. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle.

10 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025.

A 12 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge