Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02175/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02175-2/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 (federal)

---

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

ANTHONY UDOM,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11CV2175 WQH (POR)

ORDER

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, Chief Counsel,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

on Appeal (ECF No. 22), the Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal (ECF No. 23), and the

Motion to Extend/Reopen Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 24).

I. Background

On August 23, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this

action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No.

1). On November 8, 2011, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

challenging his ongoing removal proceedings. (ECF No. 13). On February 8, 2012, the First

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed without prejudice for failed to

exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 19). On February 8, 2012, the Clerk of the Court

entered judgment. (ECF No. 20). 

On February 17, 2012, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF 21). On that same

day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (ECF No.

- 1 - 11cv2175 WQH (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-02175-WQH-POR Document 27 Filed 03/01/12 Page 1 of 3
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

22), a Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal (ECF No. 23), and a Motion to Extend/Reopen

Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 24).

II. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 provides: “A party who was permitted to

proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action ... may proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis without further authorization, unless: (A) the district court--before or after the notice

of appeal is filed--certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is

not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis....” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Petitioner

was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court. The Court has not certified that the

appeal is not taken in good faith and the Court has not found that Petitioner is not otherwise

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Petitioner may proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis without further authorization. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

on Appeal (ECF No. 22) is DENIED as moot. 

III. Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that “[w]henever the United States magistrate or

the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for

any financially eligible person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241 ....” A

petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief is “not entitled to appointed counsel unless the

circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due

process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Unless an

evidentiary hearing is required, appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B) is in the discretion of the district court. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d

1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1990). “[T]he district court must evaluate both the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wright v. Director of Corrections, 443 F. App’x

289, *3 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also

Ambachew v. Ashcroft, Case No. 1:05-CV00677OWWTAGHC, 2005 WL 1398514 at *4 (E.D.

Cal. June 10, 2005) (“Petitioner has not filed a habeas petition invoking the jurisdiction of this

- 2 - 11cv2175 WQH (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-02175-WQH-POR Document 27 Filed 03/01/12 Page 2 of 3
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

Court; therefore, the Court finds that no such appointment of counsel is warranted at this

time.”). 

In this case, the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed

without prejudice because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No.

19). The Court finds that Petitioner is not likely to succeed on the merits. Appointment of

counsel by this Court is not warranted at this time. The Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal

(ECF No. 23) is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner seeking appointment of counsel from

the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IV. Motion to Extend/Reopen Time to File Appeal 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 provides that in a case in which one of the

parties in a United States agency, the “notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60

days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Petitioner filed his Notice of

Appeal 11 days after judgment was entered, within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4. Accordingly, Petitioner timely filed the Notice of Appeal. The Motion

to Extend/Reopen Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 24) is DENIED as moot. 

V. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal (ECF No.

23) is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner seeking appointment of counsel from the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on

Appeal (ECF No. 22) and the Motion to Extend/Reopen Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 24) are

DENIED as moot.

DATED: March 1, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2175 WQH (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-02175-WQH-POR Document 27 Filed 03/01/12 Page 3 of 3