Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01571/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01571-0/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 - 10cv1571

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRISTAN CARL PABLO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1571 H (AIB)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(3) SETTING SCHEDULE

vs.

ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General,

Defendant.

On July 27, 2010, Tristan Carl Pablo (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along with motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for

appointment of counsel. (Doc. Nos. 1–3.) 

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), a district court may appoint counsel for an

impoverished Petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when “the interests of justice

so require . . . .” This determination is within the discretion of the district court. See Bashor

v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the petition sets forth its grounds for

relief with reasonable clarity, and the Court believes that Petitioner will be able to sufficiently

represent himself in the remaining proceedings. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court

Case 3:10-cv-01571-H-WVG Document 4 Filed 07/30/10 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 - 10cv1571

concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Therefore, the

Court DENIES petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the

court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has submitted an

affidavit that sufficiently shows that he lacks the financial resources to pay filing fees. (Doc.

No. 2.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

III. Scheduling

The government shall file its response to the petition by September 13, 2010. The

response shall include any and all documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised

by the petition. Petitioner may file an optional reply by October 13, 2010. Absent a

subsequent order to the contrary, the Court may submit this matter on the papers pursuant to

Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2010

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:10-cv-01571-H-WVG Document 4 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2