Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses appointment of counsel for a pro se immigration detainee seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court refers the matter to the Federal Public Defender’s Office to determine the petitioner’s financial eligibility and whether counsel can be appointed in the interests of justice, and directs service of the order and petition.
Holdings
- There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.
- Appointment of counsel would serve the interests of justice if petitioner was financially eligible, given the complexity of the legal issues involved.
Questions Presented
- Whether counsel should be appointed for a financially eligible habeas petitioner under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
- What standard governs discretionary appointment of counsel in a 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…