(HC) Mousa v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMED SALADDIN MOUSA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01164-LJO-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL 14 IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS (ECF No. 30) ENFORCEMENT, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Mohamed Saladdin Mousa is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus that challenges an immigration detainer. On November 21, 2019, the Court 20 received the instant motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 30). 21 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 22 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 23 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 24 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 25 so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of 26 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 27 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 Upon review of the petition, the instant motion, and Petitioner’s numerous submissions to 2 | the Court, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the 3 | legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. As it appears that 4 | the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,! Petitioner does not demonstrate a 5 | likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of 6 | counsel at the present time. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 8 | counsel (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _November 22, 2019 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | 28 noone 7, 2019, the Court issued findings and recommendation recommending dismissal of the petition. (ECF