Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yaghoob Hossein Dadi v. Eric H. Holder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 10, 2012

YAGHOOB HOSSEIN DADI,
PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER,
RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER SCREENING PETITION; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION

Petitioner Dadi, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his petition seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleges that he is in federal custody and subject to removal, but there is no reasonable likelihood of removal. He also argues that no circumstances exist that would justify keeping him in custody pending deportation, and that he is therefore entitled to be released on bond.

The Court has conducted the mandatory screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds the petition is sufficient to survive screening.

Petitioner also requests appointment of counsel, although he used a form for appointment of counsel under the Civil Rights Act rather than under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). Under § 3006A(a)(2), the district court may appoint counsel for financially eligible petitioners seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when the interests of justice so require. The court considers whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the petition and whether the unrepresented petitioner has the ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the issues presented. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983). In this case, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Petitioner's motion is denied without prejudice.

Respondent is ORDERED TO RESPOND by filing a written Return on or before November 20, 2012. The Return shall include a memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondent's position and recommendations as to the need for this Court to conduct a hearing on the merits of the Petition; copies of all pertinent filings, regulations, directives, and orders of the agencies and courts relating to the case; and a transcript of any proceedings relevant to this case.

Petitioner, if he wishes to reply to the Return, SHALL FILE a Traverse on or before December 18, 2012. Absent a subsequent Order to the contrary, the Court will deem the matter submitted pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1 at that time.

The Clerk of Court shall transmit to the U.S. Attorney's Office a copy of the Petition, (Docket no. 1), and this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121010

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.