Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01952/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01952-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19-cv-1952-AJB-AGS

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

MIGUEL ANTONIO LOPEZCACEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

KEVIN McALEENAN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19-cv-1952-AJB-AGS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

(Doc. No. 2); AND

(2) GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE/SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE, 

(Doc. No. 6)

Presently before the Court are Petitioner Miguel Antonio Lopez-Cacerez’s

(“Petitioner”) (1) motion to appoint Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel, (Doc. 

No. 2); and (2) motion for order to show cause/set briefing schedule. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court GRANTS both of Petitioner’s motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) He was ordered 

deported from the United States for the first time on February 15, 2000. (Id.) On November 

24, 2019, Petitioner re-entered the United States, and was arrested on criminal immigration 

charges. (Id. at 3.) His removal order was reinstated. (Id.) A release order was issued on 

Case 3:19-cv-01952-AJB-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-cv-1952-AJB-AGS

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

February 8, 2019. (Id.) Eventually, he was taken into ICE custody. (Id.) Since Petitioner 

has been in immigration custody, Respondents have been unable to obtain travel documents

to effectuate Petitioner’s removal. (Id.) Petitioner has also requested travel documents from 

the Honduran consulate, but the consulate has allegedly refused to issue the documents or 

otherwise allow Petitioner to be deported to Honduras. (Id.) Petitioner has not been 

removed and has remained in immigration custody since February 2019. (Doc. No. 2 at 6.) 

On October 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241, seeking an order directing Respondents to release him from custody under the 

conditions of supervision as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). Petitioner has paid the 

requisite filing fee, and now moves for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 2.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Federal law permits a district court to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the “interests of justice so require,” and if a petitioner has shown 

that he is unable to afford an attorney. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 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). “These considerations are not separate and distinct from the underlying 

claim, but are inextricably enmeshed with them.” Id.

Petitioner states he has been detained in immigration custody since February 2019 

with no significant likelihood of removal by ICE in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Doc. 

No. 2 at 4.) He seeks relief in this Court but does not have sufficient income to retain 

counsel. (Id.) In seeking appointment of counsel, Petitioner contends that pursuant to 

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim 

as his detention exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal. See Ma v. 

Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001) (declaring that “in Zadvydas, [ ] the 

Supreme Court read the statute to permit a ‘presumptively reasonable’ detention period of 

Case 3:19-cv-01952-AJB-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-cv-1952-AJB-AGS

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

six months after a final order of removal—that is, three months after the statutory removal 

period has ended”) (citations omitted). Furthermore, Petitioner argues that due to the 

complex legal issues in the instant case in conjunction with his lack of legal training, this 

complicated area of law warrants the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 2 at 7–9.) Finally, 

Petitioner contends that appointment of counsel is necessary as there might be the potential 

need for an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 9–10.) 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court concludes that (1) Petitioner is 

financially eligible for appointment of counsel, (2) Petitioner has adequately demonstrated 

he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, and (3) his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas 

petition involves complex legal issues. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s 

motion for appointment of counsel.

B. Motion for Order to Show Cause/Set Briefing Schedule

Having considered the motion for order to show cause/set briefing schedule, and 

other filings in this matter, and good cause having been shown by Petitioner, the Court 

ORDERS Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. 

(1) Respondents will file and serve a return to the petition on or before March 11,

2020, showing cause why the writ should not be granted; and 

(2) Petitioner may file a traverse to Respondents’ return on or before March 25,

2020.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is GRANTED. The 

Court APPOINTS the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to represent Petitioner. The 

Clerk of Court is ORDERED to adjust the Docket in this case to reflect the appointed 

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-01952-AJB-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-cv-1952-AJB-AGS

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

counsel. Petitioner’s motion for order to show cause/set briefing schedule is also 

GRANTED. The parties are to comply with the filing dates consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01952-AJB-AGS Document 8 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4