Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01517/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01517-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

DAVID TAM OUM,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01517-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 2)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. In his petition, Petitioner challenges his indefinite detention in U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Mesa Verde 

Community Correctional Facility in Bakersfield, California. Petitioner has 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. 

Case 1:15-cv-01517-AWI-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/08/15 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

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

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 his 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 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, 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01517-AWI-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2