Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00540/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00540-0/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 - 08cv0684

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAVI SINGH DHILLON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv0540 JM(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

ORDER PROVISIONALLY

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

SCHEDULING ORDER

vs.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security; et al. 

Respondents.

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

On March 18, 2009, Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding in propria persona, has filed

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has also

filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis which reflects a $0.08 trust account balance at the facility

in which he is presently confined. Petitioner also declares that he possess no significant asset or

source of funds. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court grants Petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced

action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to

post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee.

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-00540-JM-AJB Document 4 Filed 03/19/09 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 - 08cv0684

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner, in an application prepared by the Federal Defenders, requests the appointment of

counsel to assist him in prosecuting his Petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 because he has

little legal experience, lacks the financial wherewithal to obtain representation, and, given the

complexity of the issues raised, cannot adequately address the issues raised in the Petition. The

Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may

lose her physical liberty if she loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S.

18, 25 (1981). Under 18 U.S.C. §3006A(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances” or in the

“interests of justice.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In light of the legal and factual issues raised in the Petition, the court cannot adequately assess

the complexity of the issues or Petitioner’s ability to articulate his claims. In broad brush, Petitioner,

who does not challenge his removability, alleges that he was taken into immigration custody on

February 5, 2008 and that Respondents have failed to effectuate his removal within the presumptively

reasonable six month period of time identified in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). The

Petition notes that India is one of the countries that the United States has listed as having had

“significant problems obtaining travel documents.” U.S. General Accounting Office, Immigration

Enforcement, at *21 (May 2004). Petitioner also represents that the Government claimed that the

reason that Petitioner had not been deported to India was due to his failure to provide the “the Indian

Consulate with an accurate address in India.” (Petition, Exh. A). The court concludes that an answer

to the Petition will provide the court with the factual and legal context required to assess Petitioner’s

motion for the appointment of counsel. 

In sum, the court provisionally denies the motion for appointment of counsel. Following the

submission of the Government’s answer, Petitioner may again request appointment of counsel in light

Case 3:09-cv-00540-JM-AJB Document 4 Filed 03/19/09 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 - 08cv0684

of the factual record and legal arguments submitted by Respondents.

Scheduling Order

1. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED to file and serve an answer or other responsive pleading

to the Petition no later than April 17, 2009. The answer shall include any and all transcripts or other

documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the Petition.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner wishes to reply to the responsive pleading,

a traverse or other appropriate pleading must be filed and served no later than May 1, 2009. At that

time, unless otherwise notified by the court, the matter will be taken under submission without oral

argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order and

the petition on the United States Attorney General or an authorized representative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-00540-JM-AJB Document 4 Filed 03/19/09 Page 3 of 3