UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 5, 2007
LESLIE N. DAVIS, PETITIONER,
BILL LOCKYER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On September 29, 2006, Petitioner Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a document styled "Motion for Appointment of Counsel." The Court construes pro se habeas filings liberally. Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Because this motion mentioned habeas corpus and Petitioner's request to be released from custody, the Court construed this as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on November 21, 2006.
"In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district 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).
The basis for the petition appears to be Petitioner's allegedly being held in custody for over 14 months following an immigration judge's order of removal, which he believes is unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Beyond this, Petitioner provides no details. Instead, Petitioner argues that the complexity of the case and the likelihood that discovery will be needed makes appointment of counsel necessary.
Petitioner provides no details regarding why the case should be considered complex or why discovery would be necessary. Petitioner is clearly aware of and able to cite 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and other relevant authority. Furthermore, except as noted, Petitioner provides no details regarding the facts giving rise to the petition. The Court therefore cannot conclude that the petition is likely to succeed on the merits.
For these reasons, the Court holds that Petitioner has not shown why appointment of counsel is appropriate in this case. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.