Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02652/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02652-0/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 - 10cv2652

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAUL NERY LOPEZ-VIRULA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-2652 JLS (JMA)

ORDER: DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 6)

vs.

ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General; JANET

NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department

of Homeland Security; ROBIN BAKER, U.S.

ICE Field Office Director for the San Diego

Area; F. LAWRENCE, Warden of

Immigration – CCA Detention Facility,

Respondents.

Petitioner Saul Nery Lopez-Virula has submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1 (Pet.).) Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. (Doc. No. 6 (Mot.).) Having considered

Petitioner’s arguments and the law, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v.

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that counsel may

be appointed for an impoverished habeas petitioner “[w]henever . . . the court determines that the

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to appoint counsel,

the court “must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner

Case 3:10-cv-02652-JLS-JMA Document 8 Filed 02/22/11 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 - 10cv2652

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).

Petitioner advances three arguments in support of his motion. The Court addresses each in

turn.

First, Petitioner contends that he “would encounter great difficulty in presenting this habeas

corpus case alone.” (Mot. 2.) However, Petitioner’s motion and petition belie this argument. The

petition coherently states the grounds on which he objects to Immigration Judge’s denial of his bond

petition and articulates relevant legal authorities (see generally Pet.); and his motion raises colorable

arguments for appointment of counsel (see Mot.). Accordingly, this case is clearly not so complex

as to render Petitioner unable to articulate his claims.

Second, petitioner contends that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement “has information and

documents relevant to Petitioner’s habeas petition, and without the assistance of counsel, Petitioner

will not be able to effectively pursue discovery.” (Id.; Rules Governing § 2254 Cases R. 6(a).) This

argument puts the cart before the horse. A habeas petitioner “is not entitled to discovery as a matter

of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, a court only may authorize

a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on a showing of “good

cause.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases R. 6(a); see also id. R. 1(b). Good cause exists “where

specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are

fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908–09

(quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969) (alteration in original)) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Here, Petitioner has yet to seek leave of the Court to propound discovery, let alone show

good cause for such a request. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for counsel to permit effective

discovery is premature.

Third, petitioner contends that the Court should appoint counsel because “[a]n evidentiary

hearing will likely be necessary in this case.” (Mot. 2; Rules Governing § 2254 Cases R. 8(c).) As

above, this argument is premature. The Court has yet to order an evidentiary hearing in this case.

Case 3:10-cv-02652-JLS-JMA Document 8 Filed 02/22/11 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 1

 The Court recognizes that circumstances may change so as to justify appointment of counsel.

If so, Petitioner may renew his motion at that time.

- 3 - 10cv2652

Accordingly, the circumstances do not yet justify appointment of counsel.1 See Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases R. 8(c).

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the

merits, other than to state, in a conclusory fashion, that he has done so. (Mot. 2 (“In light of . . .

Petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits, this court should exercise its discretion to appoint

counsel.”).

For the reasons stated, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02652-JLS-JMA Document 8 Filed 02/22/11 Page 3 of 3