Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07019/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07019-0/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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE CATARINO CASTRO GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

CURRENT OR ACTING SECRETARY 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-07019-VC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 6

Jose Catarino Castro Gomez, a detainee in immigration custody at the Yuba County Jail, 

located in Yuba, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 claiming his prolonged detention without a hearing is unconstitutional. Gomez’s 

motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted (docket nos. 2, 6). 

The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case because named defendant Erik Bonnar, 

Acting Director of the San Francisco Field Office of United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, is the proper respondent. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F.Supp. 3d 1168, 1187 

(N.D. Cal. 2017) (where a readily identifiable federal official exercises more immediate control 

over a contract facility than the Attorney General or other department head, that official is the 

proper respondent). 

Gomez has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment right 

to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 

728 (9th Cir. 1986). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, authorizes a district court to 

appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests 

of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 

Case 3:19-cv-07019-VC Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The Court finds that due process concerns and the interests of justice do not require 

appointment of counsel at this time. Therefore, Gomez’s motion is DENIED. This denial is 

without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte reconsideration should it find appointment of counsel 

is necessary following consideration of the merits of Gomez’s claims.

It does not appear from the face of the petition that it is clearly without merit. Good 

cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney for 

the Northern District of California in San Francisco. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this 

Order on Gomez. 

2. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall file with 

this Court and serve upon Gomez an Answer, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 

not be issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer all portions of any record that are relevant 

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Gomez wishes to respond to the 

Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within 

thirty days of his receipt of the Answer. If he does not do so, the petition will be deemed 

submitted and ready for decision on the date the Traverse is due.

3. No later than sixty days from the date of this Order, Respondent may file with this 

Court and serve upon Gomez a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer. If 

Respondent files such a motion, Gomez shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within thirty days of receipt of the 

motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Gomez a reply within fourteen 

days of receipt of an opposition.

4. It is Gomez’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 

Case 3:19-cv-07019-VC Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 3
3

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. He also must 

serve on Respondent’s counsel all communications with the Court by mailing a true copy of the 

document to Respondent’s counsel. 

5. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted.

Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than three days prior to the deadline 

sought to be extended.

6. This order terminates docket numbers 2, 3 and 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

December 19, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-07019-VC Document 9 Filed 12/19/19 Page 3 of 3