Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01700/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01700-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

- 1 - 07CV1700 WQH (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE PEDROZA-MEDINA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1700 WQH (AJB)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Jose Pedroza-Medina’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. # 1), motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

# 2), and motion for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (Doc. # 3).

Petitioner alleges that his continued and indefinite detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is unlawful

because Petitioner has been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable period of six months and

there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v.

Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Having reviewed Petitioner’s claims, the Court finds that summary dismissal of the petition

is unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

(“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO

SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by:

Case 3:07-cv-01700-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 07CV1700 WQH (AJB)

(1) filing a written return no later than Friday, October 12, 2007.

(2) filing copies of all documents, orders and transcripts relevant to the petition; and

(3) filing a memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ position and making 

 a recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing on the petition. 

If Petitioner wishes to reply to the return, he may do so by way of a traverse filed no later than

Friday, November 9, 2007.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

All parties instituting a habeas proceeding in a district court of the United States must pay a

filing fee of $5.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only

if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege

not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). 

In his accompanying affidavit, Plaintiff states that he is presently incarcerated, not employed,

has no assets, and has less than one dollar in his prison trust account. After considering Plaintiff’s

motion and the accompanying affidavit, the Court determines that Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the

filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed (Doc. # 2) in forma pauperis.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

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 . . . .” “The purpose of

section 3006A is to provide for appointed counsel whenever required if failure to do so amounts to

a denial of due process.” Gray v. Kernan, No. C-92-3379-DLJ, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2113, *10-12

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 1993); citing 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).

In deciding whether to appoint counsel, 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

Case 3:07-cv-01700-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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 - 07CV1700 WQH (AJB)

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Gutierrez v. Flannican, No. CIV 05-2981 PHX DGC

(DKD), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31984, *1-2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2005); citing Weygandt v. Look, 718

F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Petitioner has been subject to an administrative order of removal since April 25, 2006, and has

been detained since January 23, 2007. As of today, Petitioner has been detained beyond the six month

presumptively reasonable time period articulated in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). 

With respect to Petitioner’s removal, Mexico has refused to issue travel documents for

Petitioner, and the United States has not yet received travel documents that would permit Petitioner

to be removed to Guatemala. Petitioner contends that he cannot be removed to Guatemala until

further administrative proceedings occur, and that those proceedings are not likely to occur in the

reasonably foreseeable future. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1005 (9th Cir. 2001) (when there

is no reasonable likelihood that a foreign government will accept a removable alien’s return in the

reasonably foreseeable future, the removable alien may not be held by the United States for more than

a reasonable period beyond the removal period). Under the facts as alleged in the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus, the Court concludes that Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the

merits.

B. Complexity of Legal Issues

Petitioner has clearly presented the facts and law in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

and the Court concludes that the applicable law under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is not particularly complex.

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in Zadvydas clearly articulated the law which governs

detentions pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and that law has been applied by a number of lower courts.

Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); see also Ma, 257 F.3d 1095. After reviewing Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel in light of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court concludes that

the failure to appoint counsel at this stage of the proceedings would not amount to a denial of due

process. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

/

Case 3:07-cv-01700-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 07CV1700 WQH (AJB)

/

CONCLUSION

(1) Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Petitioner’s petition should not be

granted, and shall respond to this Order as outlined above.

(2) Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED.

(3) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01700-WQH-AJB Document 4 Filed 09/12/07 Page 4 of 4