Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01231/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01231-0/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YUN PING HE,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN OF MESA VERDE 

IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITY, 

et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01231-GSA-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 2)

Petitioner is in ICE custody and proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On August 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2). 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 

773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment 

of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional 

circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

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

Case 1:15-cv-01231-AWI-EPG Document 6 Filed 08/13/15 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

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he has a high likelihood of 

success on the merits, the complexity of the issues involved in the case and Petitioner’s inability 

to adequately present the issues, he will be unable to effectively pursue discovery without the aid 

of an attorney, and because he believes an evidentiary hearing will be scheduled in this case. 

Upon a review of Petitioner’s petition and the instant motion for appointment of counsel, the 

Court finds that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his claims for habeas relief and the legal 

issues involved, and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately at this time. 

Furthermore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this time 

such that his case should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance.” See Weygandt, 718 

F.2d at 954. Petitioner has not made a request for discovery yet, and at this time, the Court does 

not find that counsel is necessary for discovery. Also, the Court notes that Respondent has not 

yet submitted a response to the petition and the Court has not yet ordered an evidentiary hearing

or expressed an opinion on whether an evidentiary hearing will be necessary in this case. 

Therefore, in the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the 

appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01231-AWI-EPG Document 6 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2