Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00768/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00768-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW MADRID,

Petitioner,

v.

FRED LAWRENCE,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:14-cv-0768-GPC-DHB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

On April 1, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, contending he is being deprived of the gratuities, clothing, and

transportation provided to indigent defendants upon release fromfederal custody under

28 C.F.R. § 571.20 et seq. (ECF No. 1, “Petition”.) Petitioner is currently being

housed in a Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) facility, which is a nonfederal facility located in San Diego County, California. Petitioner is due to be

released toward the end of May 2014.

On April 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel

(“Motion”). (ECF No. 5.) The Motion, coupled with a request for an expedited

hearing on the Petition per Petitioner’s impending release from custody, states in its

1

entirety: “Notice of motion to appoint counsel [d]ue to the fact that I am [l]egally

 The Court has set May 23, 2014, as the date to consider the Petition. (See ECF No. 6.) 1

3:14-cv-0768-GPC-DHB

Case 3:14-cv-00768-GPC-DHB Document 7 Filed 04/22/14 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

illiterate and need appointment of counsel for this legal action.”

In an in forma pauperis action such as this, a district court “may request an

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

(emphasis added). Appointment of counsel in a civil case “is a privilege and not a

right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 1965). 

The decision whether to request an attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff is within

the discretion of the court and is “granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)

(quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). In exercising its

discretion, the court must consider three factors: “(1) the plaintiff’s financialresources,

(2) the efforts made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff’s claim

has merit.” Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th

Cir.1981).

Here, Petitioner has already demonstrated he lacks financial resources to secure

counsel, in that the Court has found Petitioner indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF

No. 3.) Petitioner has not, however, demonstrated that he has made any efforts to

secure counsel. While Petitioner represents that he is “legally illiterate,” his filings in

this Court—each of which are comprehensible—indicate otherwise.

As to the merit of Petitioner’s claim, the Court findsit has some merit. Petitioner

contends that, as a federal prisoner who will be released toward the end of May 2014,

he is being deprived of the release gratuities, transportation, and clothing that indigent

prisoners are entitled to under 28 C.F.R. §§ 571.20; 571.21(a), (b), (d); and 571.22(c). 

28 CFR § 571.20 provides:

It is the policy of the Bureau of Prisons that an inmate being released to

the community will have suitable clothing, transportation to the inmate’s

release destination, and some funds to use until he orshe beginsto receive

income. Based on the inmate’s need and financial resources, a

discretionary gratuity up to the amount permitted by statue may be

granted.

28 CFR § 571.21 provides: “A federal prisoner boarded in a non-federal facility

2 3:14-cv-0768-GPC-DHB

Case 3:14-cv-00768-GPC-DHB Document 7 Filed 04/22/14 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

is eligible for a release gratuity. The director of the non-federal facility . . . or the

community corrections manager shall determine the amount of release gratuity in

accordance with the purpose and scope of this regulation . . . .”

Petitioner provides documentation indicating that, in response to Petitioner’s

requestfor release gratuities, transportation, and clothing toRespondent, Respondent’s

response was “You need to address this with the U.S. Marshals, and with your

attorney.” (ECF No. 1 at 9.) In other words, if Petitioner’s allegations are true, it

appears Respondent did not comply with 28 C.F.R. § 571.20 etseq. As such, the Court

finds Petitioner’s claim has some merit.

Still, given Petitioner’s failure to attempt to secure counsel (pro bono or

otherwise) on his own, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated the “exceptional

circumstances” necessary for the Court to request that an attorney represent Petitioner.

Further, the factual and legal issues underlying the Petition have not yet been

developed; thus, it may be that the Court ultimately finds Petitioner’s claim does not

have merit. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion, (ECF No. 5), is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

DATED: April 22, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 3:14-cv-0768-GPC-DHB

Case 3:14-cv-00768-GPC-DHB Document 7 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 3