Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Ho Hai Nguyen
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

HO HAI NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01274-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3).

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

See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 

479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 

counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to

appoint counsel, the “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).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he is a layperson without any 

education in immigration laws and the issues in this case are complex. Upon review of the 

Case 1:16-cv-01274-EPG Document 8 Filed 09/07/16 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

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

that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely 

complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the 

interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Moreover, Petitioner 

has not demonstrated that he is a financially eligible person under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

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

counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01274-EPG Document 8 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2