“[T]he protections of the Sixth Amendment 2 || right to counsel do not extend to either state collateral proceedings or federal habeas corpus 3 || proceedings.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he protections of the Sixth Amendment 2 || right to counsel do not extend to either state collateral proceedings or federal habeas corpus 3 || proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DENIS ALIC, Case No.: 25-cv-01749-AJB-BLM
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY/IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS
15 (Doc. No. 9)
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
16
Respondents.
17
18
19 Before the Court is Petitioner Denis Alic’s motion for appointment of counsel
20 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). (Doc. No. 9.) Petitioner, with the assistance of the
21 Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., set forth a detailed and well-reasoned motion,
22 arguing that appointment of counsel was in the “interests of justice” because Petitioner will
23 likely succeed on the merits but cannot adequately articulate his claims in the absence of
24 counsel due to the legal complexity of the issues involved. (See generally id.)
25 The writ of habeas corpus is of “fundamental importance” because it “safeguard[s]
26 individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d
27 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), as amended (Feb. 19, 1992). Nonetheless, there is no
28 constitutional right to appointment of counsel in § 2241 habeas actions. See Bonin v.
1 || Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 430 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he protections of the Sixth Amendment
2 || right to counsel do not extend to either state collateral proceedings or federal habeas corpus
3 || proceedings.”). However, the district court may appoint counsel for an impoverished
4 habeas petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whenever “the court determines
5 ||that the interest of justice so require[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In making this
6 || determination, “a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits
7 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of
8 ||the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations
9 || omitted).
10 Upon review of the Petition and Traverse (both of which were completed without
11 || assistance of Federal Defenders), the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient
12 || grasp of his claims, and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate those
13 |/claims adequately. Additionally, the Court finds that the legal issues involved are not
14 || overly complex. Finally, the Court notes that the briefing on the Petition is complete and,
15 the moment, no supplemental briefing has been requested. Based on the current record,
16 || the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is required
17 || by the interests of justice at this stage of the proceedings.
18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion without prejudice. (Doc.
19 || No. 9.) Petitioner is permitted to file a renewed motion for appointment of counsel as his
20 || Petition progresses.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: September 26, 2025 © g
23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia
24 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28