Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01789/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01789-1/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 - 07cv1789 (WQH) JMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISSAC ABDI HASHI, [A70-379-572],

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv1789 (WQH) JMA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, ALBERTO GONZALES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROBIN F.

BAKER, DIRECTOR OF SAN DIEGO

FIELD OFFICE, BUREAU OF

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT, JOHN A. GARZON,

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Issac Abdi Hashi’s motion for appointment of counsel,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Doc. # 4), to assist him in his efforts to seek relief from his detention

through his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1). Petitioner alleges

that his continued and indefinite detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is unlawful because Petitioner

has been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable period of six months and there is no

significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678 (2001).

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

- 2 - 07cv1789 (WQH) JMA

DISCUSSION

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that “[w]henever the United States magistrate or the

court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any

financially eligible person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241 . . . .” “The purpose of

section 3006A is to provide for appointed counsel whenever required if failure to do so amounts to

a denial of due process.” Gray v. Kernan, No. C-92-3379-DLJ, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2113, *10-

12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 1993); citing Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Unless

an evidentiary hearing is required, appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)

is in the discretion of the district court. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir.

1990). In deciding whether to appoint counsel, 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.” Gutierrez v. Flannican, No. CIV 05-2981 PHX

DGC (DKD), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31984, *1-2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2005); citing Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Petitioner has been subject to a final order of removal since February 8, 2007, and has been

detained since February 2, 2007. Petitioner has been detained beyond the six month presumptively

reasonable time period articulated in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). 

With respect to Petitioner’s removal, the United States government has not yet received

travel documents that would permit Petitioner’s repatriation to Somalia. Federal immigration

officials admitted they “cannot now remove” Petitioner to Somalia “as there is no stable

government in Somalia to issue a document.” Habeas Petition, Appendix A. Petitioner contends

that there is no indication that his status will change in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Ma

v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1005 (9th Cir. 2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood that a

foreign government will accept a removable alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the

removable alien may not be held by the United States for more than a reasonable period beyond

the removal period). Under the facts as alleged in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the

Court concludes that Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 09/27/07 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

27

28

- 3 - 07cv1789 (WQH) JMA

B. Complexity of Legal Issues

After reviewing Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel in light of his Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court concludes that this case involves complex legal issues, and

appointment of counsel is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 4) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01789-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3