Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01806/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01806-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEI LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD VALINKEN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01806-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

Petitioner Wei Lin is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 30, 2019, the Court received the instant motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3).

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

See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 

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).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “has limited knowledge of 

the law and lacks expertise in the legal issues of his case.” (ECF No. 3 at 1). Upon review of the 

Case 1:19-cv-01806-EPG Document 9 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

petition, the instant motion, and Petitioner’s other submissions to the Court, 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. 

If, upon review of Respondent’s response to the petition, the Court finds that the legal 

issues are more complex than they appear currently, the Court will revisit Petitioner’s request for 

counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01806-EPG Document 9 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2