Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00374/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00374-0/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

1 11cv374-BTM (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSSATTY GILBERTO G.,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv374-BTM (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.

Respondents.

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241, as well as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel.

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s declaration in support of the Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and concludes that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of inability

to pay the filing fees and court costs. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Petitioner is

permitted to prosecute this action without being required to prepay fees or

costs and without being required to post security.

(2) The Clerk of Court shall file Petitioner’s Petition without prepayment of the filing

fee.

(3) The United States Marshal shall serve a summons and a copy of the Petition

on Respondents as directed by Petitioner on U.S. Marshal form 285. All costs

Case 3:11-cv-00374-BTM-WVG Document 6 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 2
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 11cv374-BTM (WVG)

of service shall be advanced by the United States.

Petitioner requests appointment of counsel pursuant to 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 953, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Based upon the allegations of the Petition, Petitioner has presented a substantial

claim under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In addition, the Court finds that

assistance of counsel is necessary to enable Petitioner to obtain the discovery needed to

present his claims. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the Court hereby GRANTS

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. is

hereby appointed counsel for Petitioner.

The Court orders Respondents to show cause why Petitioner is not entitled to the

relief requested in the Petition. Respondents’ return to the Petition must be filed on or before

May 30, 2011. Any reply by Petitioner must be filed on or before June 13, 2011. The matter

will be set for hearing on June 17, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Unless otherwise directed by the

Court, no oral argument is requested and no appearances are necessary on the hearing

date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

cc: Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.

Case 3:11-cv-00374-BTM-WVG Document 6 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 2