Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00529/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00529-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1 

17-cv-0529-AJB-KSC 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARMANDO SEVERINO-ZUNIGA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 17-cv-0529-AJB-KSC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

(Doc. No. 5) 

 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Armando Severino-Zuniga’s (“Petitioner”) 

motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 5.) Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. have 

requested to represent Petitioner. (Id. at 16–20.) For the reasons explained more fully 

below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion. 

BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Doc. No. 1 at 

2.) On March 14, 2017, he filed his complaint asserting a cause of action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner alleges that he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”) on March 15, 2016. (Id. at 4.) Subsequently, on June 28, 2016, an 

immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Canada. (Id.) Petitioner argues that ICE 

did not act in good faith while implementing the deportation order as they supposedly tried 

to remove him back to Argentina. (Id.) In sum, Petitioner’s habeas petition contends that 

Case 3:17-cv-00529-AJB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17-cv-0529-AJB-KSC 

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

he has been denied the opportunity to demonstrate that he should not be detained. (Id. at 

6.) Currently, Petitioner has submitted appeals regarding this matter to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 

4.) 

 After filing his complaint, Petitioner’s case was dismissed without prejudice on 

March 23, 2017, for failure to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. No. 2.) On March 30, 2017, 

Petitioner paid the filing fee. (Doc. No. 3.) On June 23, 2017, Petitioner filed the present 

motion, his motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 5.) 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal law permits a district court to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the “interests of justice so require,” and if a petitioner has shown 

that he is unable to afford an attorney. 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.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983). “These considerations are not separate and distinct from the underlying 

claim, but are inextricably enmeshed with them.” Id. 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel argues that as he has been detained for almost 

a year, he does not have a source of income and thus cannot afford to retain counsel. (Doc. 

No. 5 at 3.) Additionally, Petitioner contends that he is highly likely to succeed on the 

merits of his claim as his detention “exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure 

removal.” (Id. at 4 (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001))); see also Ma v. 

Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001) (declaring that “in Zadvydas, [] the 

Supreme Court read the statute to permit a ‘presumptively reasonable’ detention period of 

six months after a final order of removal – that is, three months after the statutory removal 

period has ended”) (citations omitted). Furthermore, Petitioner argues that due to the 

complex legal issues in the instant case in conjunction with his lack of legal training, this 

Case 3:17-cv-00529-AJB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17-cv-0529-AJB-KSC 

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

complicated area of law warrants the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 5 at 7.) Finally, 

Petitioner contends that appointment of counsel is necessary as there might be the potential 

need for an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 8–9.) 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court concludes that Petitioner is financially 

eligible for appointment of counsel and has adequately demonstrated that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits of his claim and that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition involves 

complex legal issues. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is GRANTED. The 

Court APPOINTS the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., to represent Petitioner. The 

Clerk of Court is ordered to adjust the Docket in this case to reflect the appointed counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 6, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00529-AJB-KSC Document 6 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3