Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jose Juan-Lorenzo filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his immigration detention. He asserts he has been subject to a final order of removal since August 2001 and has remained in continuous ICE custody since September 14, 2026—exceeding six months. The petition raises a Zadvydas claim, arguing that his prolonged detention beyond the statutory removal period is unlawful because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court notes the petition contains some ambiguity regarding the exact length and circumstances of petitioner's custody.
The petitioner moved for court-appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent authorizing appointment for indigent habeas petitioners when the interests of justice so require. The court evaluates the motion under the two-factor test from Wilborn v. Escalderon: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the petitioner's ability to articulate his claims pro se given the complexity of the legal issues. The court also cites Rios Castillo v. Warden, a recent Eastern District of California decision granting habeas relief where detention exceeded six months and the government failed to show a significant likelihood of removal.
The Court’s Holding
The court grants the motion for appointed counsel. On the first Wilborn factor, the court finds the merits of petitioner's Zadvydas claim are at worst neutral and at best favor appointment: if petitioner has been held for more than six months on a final removal order, many courts have granted habeas relief on such facts. The court cites Rios Castillo v. Warden as directly analogous. On the second factor, the court finds petitioner's ability to articulate his case weighs decidedly in favor of appointment. The petition's ambiguity about the length of custody suggests he needs assistance, and Zadvydas claims are legally complex—immigration law being 'second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity' per Ninth Circuit precedent.
The court provisionally appoints Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., to initially determine whether petitioner qualifies for representation by that organization. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of the order to Federal Defenders. By October 28, 2026, Federal Defenders must submit a notice to the court stating whether it can and will accept the appointment. If it accepts, Federal Defenders must also file any amended petition by that same date. The court adopts the Standard Procedures from Chief Judge Order No. 144 for any amended petition.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied the two-factor Wilborn test for appointing counsel in habeas cases: likelihood of success on the merits and petitioner's ability to articulate claims pro se given legal complexity.
- A Zadvydas claim challenging detention beyond six months under a final removal order presents a colorable claim where the merits factor is at least neutral and potentially favorable for appointment.
- Immigration law's recognized complexity—'second only to the Internal Revenue Code'—weighs heavily in favor of appointing counsel for pro se detainees.
- The court provisionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., with a deadline of October 28, 2026, to accept the appointment and file any amended petition.
- The court adopted Chief Judge Order No. 144's Standard Procedures for any amended petition filed by appointed counsel.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the district court's application of the Wilborn factors in the immigration habeas context, where prolonged detention under Zadvydas v. Davis creates a structural need for counsel. By recognizing that a six-month post-removal-order detention states a colorable claim—and that immigration law's complexity renders pro se litigation effectively inaccessible—the court ensures meaningful access to habeas review for indigent detainees. The provisional appointment of Federal Defenders with a firm deadline promotes administrative efficiency while safeguarding the petitioner's rights.