Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice a pro se federal immigration detainee’s motion for appointment of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas proceeding. The court concluded that Petitioner could adequately articulate his claims, the legal issues were not unusually complex, and the interests of justice did not presently require appointed counsel.
Holdings
- Appointment of counsel was not required because there is no absolute right to counsel in habeas proceedings, and Petitioner did not demonstrate both a sufficient need based on the complexity of the issues and a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice required counsel.
Questions Presented
- Whether the interests of justice required appointment of counsel for a financially eligible petitioner in this habeas proceeding.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958)(followed)
- Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…