Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03012/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03012-0/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 - [11cv3012-AJB(WVG)]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR AGUILUZ-PINEDA, Civil No. 11cv3012-AJB(WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER (1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; AND (2)SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Doc. No. 3.]

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY OF

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY,

Respondent.

On December 22, 2011, Petitioner, an Immigration and Customs’ detainee, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with a motion for appointment of

counsel and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 29, 2011, the Court

denied Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dimissed the case with leave

to amend. On January 12, 2012, the Court received the $5.00 filing fee from Petitioner. 

Accordingly, the case was reopened. 

Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A

concurrently with his petition. Petitioner argues he is indigent and unable to afford an attorney and

argues that his case is highly complex. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), financially eligible

habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may obtain representation whenever a

magistrate judge or the district court “determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990). District courts have

discretion to appoint an attorney to represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional

Case 3:11-cv-03012-AJB-WVG Document 6 Filed 01/13/12 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 - [11cv3012-AJB(WVG)]

circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of

King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.’” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

After a review of the motion and the petition filed, the Court does not find exceptional

circumstances to justify the appointment of counsel. Petitioner has been able to set forth the factual

and legal basis for his claims with sufficient clarity to allow them to be addressed on their merits. 

The Plaintiff’s legal claims, and the factual bases for those claims in this case, are not so complex as

to require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel.

In addition, Respondent shall file and serve a return to the petition on or before March 23,

2012. The government’s response shall include all documents relevant to the issues raised in the

petition. Petitioner may file a reply to the Government’s return on or before April 20, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03012-AJB-WVG Document 6 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 2