Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02251/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02251-1/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 - 06cv2251

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE N. DAVIS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv2251-LAB (POR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, et al.,

Respondents.

On September 29, 2006, Petitioner Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a document styled

“Motion for Appointment of Counsel.” The Court construes pro se habeas filings liberally.

Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Because this motion mentioned

habeas corpus and Petitioner’s request to be released from custody, the Court construed

this as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis was granted on November 21, 2006.

“In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 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.”

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

The basis for the petition appears to be Petitioner’s allegedly being held in custody

for over 14 months following an immigration judge’s order of removal, which he believes is

unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Beyond this, Petitioner provides

Case 3:06-cv-02251-LAB-POR Document 5 Filed 01/05/07 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 - 06cv2251

no details. Instead, Petitioner argues that the complexity of the case and the likelihood that

discovery will be needed makes appointment of counsel necessary.

Petitioner provides no details regarding why the case should be considered complex

or why discovery would be necessary. Petitioner is clearly aware of and able to cite 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231 and other relevant authority. Furthermore, except as noted, Petitioner provides no

details regarding the facts giving rise to the petition. The Court therefore cannot conclude

that the petition is likely to succeed on the merits.

For these reasons, the Court holds that Petitioner has not shown why appointment

of counsel is appropriate in this case. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is

therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02251-LAB-POR Document 5 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2