Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00955/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00955-3/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

1

 The appeal is Ninth Circuit no. 07-73250, filed August 17, 2007.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcos Antonio Lomeli,

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0955-PHX-PGR 

 

 ORDER

 The petitioner has been detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement since November 9, 2006 pending the effectuation of an

administratively final order requiring his removal to Mexico. ICE has not removed

the petitioner because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the removal

order on February 15, 2008 pending its consideration of the petitioner’s judicial 

appeal; the appeal is still pending.1

 The petitioner filed a habeas petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking his release from detention. The Court

dismissed the petition on August 18, 2009 (doc. #38), finding that the petitioner

was not entitled to habeas relief because the petitioner’s continued detention is

authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the pendency of his appeal of his removal

order did render his continuing detention illegal for purposes of Zadvydas v.

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/14/09 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

- 2 -

Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), given that there were no obstacles to the

government repatriating him to Mexico if his pending bid for judicial review of the

removal order proved unsuccessful, see Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053,

1062-63 (9th Cir.2008), and because the petitioner, subsequent to the filing of his

§ 2241 petition, had been given an individual bond hearing before an immigration

judge who determined that the petitioner’s continued detention was required

because he constituted a danger to the community, and that detention finding had

been affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Pending before the Court is the petitioner’s Motion in Request for Counsel

(doc. #43), which he filed on September 24, 2009 as an accompaniment to his

notice of appeal of the dismissal of his § 2241 petition. Having reviewed the

motion for appointment of counsel on appeal, the Court finds that it should be

denied.

Although there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a 

§ 2241 proceeding, the Court has the discretion to appoint counsel to financially

eligible habeas petitioners if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas

proceeding, 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). The Court cannot conclude that the interests of justice warrant the

appointment of counsel here because the Court does not believe that the

petitioner has a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal given the Court’s

reasons for denying the habeas petition. See Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,

243 F.3d 629, 632 (2nd Cir.2001) (In denying a motion for appointment of counsel

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/14/09 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

- 3 -

in a § 2241 proceeding, the court noted that “even though a claim may not be

characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be appointed in a case where the

merits of the individual’s claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are therefore

poor.”) Furthermore, the petitioner has thus far adequately presented his claims

in this action unaided by counsel. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (doc. #42) is granted pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion in Request for

Counsel (doc. #43) is denied.

DATED this 10th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00955-PGR Document 46 Filed 10/14/09 Page 3 of 3