Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00775/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00775-1/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ALONZO LOPEZ-ALVARENGA,

Petitioner,

v.

CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE 

DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD 

OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION 

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00775-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

Petitioner David Alonzo Lopez-Alvarenga is a federal immigration detainee proceeding 

pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has 

moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.)

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 

479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 

counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 

so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, 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).

Case 1:24-cv-00775-EPG Document 10 Filed 07/08/24 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

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “has a strong chance of 

success on the merits,” “the complexity of the law on immigration detention,” and because 

“Petitioner’s status as a detained immigrant” makes presenting his case greatly difficult without 

the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 3 at 2.)

Upon review of the petition and the instant motion, the Court finds that Petitioner appears 

to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 

articulate those claims adequately. The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the 

appointment of counsel at the present time. If, upon review of Respondent’s response to the 

petition, the Court finds that the legal issues are more complex than they appear currently, the 

Court will revisit Petitioner’s request for counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00775-EPG Document 10 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 2