Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00927/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00927-1/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

08cv927

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL GONZALEZ-LEYTON,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv927-L(CAB)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND EXTENDING TIME

TO FILE TRAVERSE

In this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner filed a renewed

motion for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, indicating that Federal Defenders

of San Diego, Inc., who assisted him in the preparation of the habeas petition and motions for

appointment of counsel, is willing to represent him as his appointed counsel. 

Section 3006A(2)(b) provides that “[w]henever . . . the court determines that the interests

of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who is

seeking relief under section 2241 . . ..” Appointment under section 3006A(2)(b) is discretionary, 

United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 799 n.5 (9th Cir. 1986), and can be ordered

at any stage of the case if the interests of justice so require, Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954

(9th Cir. 1983). “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

Case 3:08-cv-00927-L-CAB Document 11 Filed 07/15/08 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

1 Petitioner had an attorney draft his petition and his motions for appointment of

counsel. He has therefore deprived the court of the opportunity to more accurately assess his

ability to articulate the claims pro se. 

2 08cv927

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt,

718 F.2d at 954.

Petitioner was ordered removed to Nicaragua on or about July 25, 2007. (Decl. of

Manuel Gonzalez-Leyton (“Decl.”) ¶ 6; Government’s Return in Opp’n to Pet. for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (“Opp’n”), Ex. G.) His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was

dismissed on or about November 27, 2007. (Decl. ¶ 6.) On December 19, 2007, Petitioner

appealed the order of removal to the Ninth Circuit and requested a stay of removal. (Id. ¶ 7 &

Ex. A; Opp’n Ex. L.) The Court granted his motion and set a briefing schedule ending on or

about October 31, 2008. (Decl. Ex. A.) Petitioner has been in immigration detention since April

24, 2006, and seeks release from immigration custody pending his appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

(Id. ¶ 2, 4.) 

Petitioner’s success on the merits is not assured. Although Petitioner has been in

immigration custody now for over two years, it appears that a large portion of that time was due

to his repeated requests for continuances in the proceedings prior to the current appeal. (Opp’n.

at 1-2 & Ex. C, G, H, J.) Petitioner seeks to be released during the pendency of his appeal. (Pet.

at 3.) So far, however, the appellate proceedings have not been delayed and have proceeded in

due course.

Although Petitioner asserts that neither he nor his family have the funds to retain counsel

(Decl. ¶ ¶ 8-12), he is represented by retained counsel on his appeal to the Ninth Circuit and was

represented by other retained counsel in the immigration proceedings before the appeal (id. ¶¶ 6,

7). Petitioner has lived in the United States since he was three, graduated from high school in

Los Angeles and speaks English fluently. (Id. ¶ 13.) The issues presented by the Petition are not

appropriate for summary disposition without briefing, however, they are not particularly

complex. Petitioner is therefore in no worse position to present his claims than many habeas

petitioners who file their petitions in this court pro se.

1

 

Case 3:08-cv-00927-L-CAB Document 11 Filed 07/15/08 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

3 08cv927

In light of the foregoing, interests of justice to not require appointment of counsel at this

time. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. If Petitioner wishes to reply

to the Respondents’ responsive memorandum, the time to file his traverse is extended until no

later than August 5, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Manuel Gonzalez-Leyton

A73-809-412

San Diego Detention Center (CCA)

P.O. Box 439049

San Ysidro, CA 92143-9049

Case 3:08-cv-00927-L-CAB Document 11 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 3