Ventura v. Archambeault ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRISTIAN GUTIERREZ VENTURA, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00963-GPC-AGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, San PETITIONER EXTENSION OF Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 15 TIME TO FILE A REPLY and Customs Enforcement, et. al., [ECF No. 20.] 16 17 Respondents. 18 Petitioner Cristian Gutierrez Ventura (“Petitioner”), a detainee, proceeding pro se 19 20 and in forma pauperis, in the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 21 (“ICE”), filed a motion for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. (Dkt. No. 22 20.) On May 22, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 22 23 24 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting immediate release from the Imperial Regional Detention 25 1 26 1 Facility “due to the urgent threat to his life posed by COVID-19.” (Dkt. No. 1.) He filed 2 an Amended Petition on May 26, 2020. (Dkt. No. 4.) Respondents filed a Return to 3 Petition and supplemental documents. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 15, 16, 18.) No reply was filed by 4 5 Petitioner; instead on July 3, 20201, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 6 Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 7 counsel but grants Petitioner an extension of time to file a reply. 8 9 Analysis 10 Petitioner argues that he should be appointed counsel due to the complex nature of 11 the case and likelihood of success on the merits. He notes that when Respondents sought 12 13 an extension of time to file additional documents, they even argued they needed 14 additional time due to the “complex nature of the matters.” Moreover, he argues that 15 appointment of counsel is necessary because discovery is imperative and an evidentiary 16 17 hearing may be necessary. 18 There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in federal habeas 19 proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 20 21 22 23 24 1 On June 4, 2002, Petitioner was serving a 30-day disciplinary segregation to “A-Unit” in a single- occupancy closed cell due to a disciplinary report that he was in possession of detainee manufactured 25 alcohol and would be released on July 3, 2020. (Dkt. No. 15, Marrero Decl. ¶ 117.) 2 26 1 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus 2 relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case 3 indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.”). 4 5 However, appointment of counsel for a § 2241 habeas petitioner is appropriate for 6 financially eligible petitioners when “the court determines that the interests of justice so 7 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Appointment of counsel is required when the 8 9 court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 10 1176, 1881 (9th Cir. 1990). 11 Here, Petitioner has competently represented himself and filed a 38-page petition 12 13 that includes a thorough and detailed statement of fact and supporting law concerning his 14 claim for habeas relief. The instant motion for appointment of counsel further 15 demonstrates Petitioner’s ability to present legal and factual arguments to support his 16 17 position. His circumstance does not indicate that appointment of counsel is necessary to 18 avoid due process violations. See Dunsmore v. Paramo, No. 13cv1193-GPC-PCL, 2013 19 WL 5738774 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) (denying appointment of counsel to a pro se 20 21 litigant who had a “good grasp of the basis of his claims, and [was] able to articulate 22 them in light of the relative complexity of the legal issues involved”). 23 24 25 3 26 1 As to discovery, Respondents have provided the relevant medical records concerning Petitioner’s condition and documents concerning the IRDF’s efforts to protect 3 A its detainees from Covid-19 exposure and infection. Petitioner has not indicated what 5 || additional discovery would be necessary to resolve the issue in his petition. Moreover, 6 Petitioner argues that an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. At this stage, it is not 7 clear whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary and therefore, appointment of counsel 9 not warranted. In the event the Court reviews the record and determines an evidentiary 10 hearing is necessary, the Court will appoint counsel; however, at this time, the Court 11 12 DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 13 Conclusion Based on the above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 15 16 counsel. In light of his request, the Court GRANTS Petitioner leave to file a reply on or 17 || before August 7, 2020. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: July 17, 2020 2 / Ox Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 39 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 3:20-cv-00963-GPC-AGS 27