Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01496/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01496-1/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

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In her petition, Petitioner challenges her indefinite detention in U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Doc. 1. Petitioner is incarcerated at 

the Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility in Bakersfield, California. Petitioner has 

filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Doc. 9. 

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).

YUEAI FENG,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH,

Respondent.

1:15 -cv-1496 SMS (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document#9)

Case 1:15-cv-01496-SMS Document 12 Filed 10/20/15 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 English is not her first language and she has no background in 

law. She argues that she is unable to adequately investigate the facts relevant to her petition 

because of the restrictive conditions of her incarceration. She argues that she is therefore 

unable to adequately understand and present the legal issues in her case, including any 

potential discovery matters that may arise. 

At this time, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits 

and she appears sufficiently able to articulate her claim. The Court does not find that

Petitioner’s case falls under “exceptional circumstances” such that the interests of justice 

require the appointment of counsel.

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

of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01496-SMS Document 12 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 2