Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lazaro R. Taboada, an immigration detainee in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention during removal proceedings. On September 28, 2026, he filed a motion for appointment of counsel, arguing that immigration law is complex and that his petition had a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
The court had granted Taboada leave to proceed in forma pauperis. To better ascertain the basis for his detention and to evaluate his due process claim, the court directed the respondents, the Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility and others, to respond to the petition and to attach any records necessary to resolve it. That response was not yet due when the court decided the motion for appointment of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that there is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings, citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991), and Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479 (9th Cir. 1958). Under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, the court may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person seeking relief under § 2241 when the interests of justice so require.
In deciding whether appointment is warranted, the court considers the petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate claims pro se in light of the legal issues' complexity, citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is also required if the court authorizes discovery and counsel is necessary for effective discovery, or if the court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Applying those standards, the court could not conclude at this early stage that Taboada had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and because the respondents had been directed to attach necessary records, it was not yet clear whether discovery or an evidentiary hearing would be required. Although Taboada cited the complexity of immigration law, he had adequately filed a habeas petition setting out facts and supporting legal authority in a coherent manner. On the present record, the court did not find that appointment of counsel was necessary to prevent a due process violation, and it ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of Taboada's detention or due process claims.
Key Takeaways
- There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in federal habeas proceedings, but the Criminal Justice Act permits discretionary appointment for a financially eligible § 2241 petitioner when the interests of justice require it.
- The court weighs the petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits, his ability to articulate claims pro se, and the complexity of the legal issues.
- Appointment is required when the court authorizes discovery and counsel is necessary for effective discovery, or when the court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
- Because the respondents' response was not yet due and the need for discovery or a hearing remained unclear, the court could not find a likelihood of success or a due process need for counsel at this early stage.
- The motion was denied without prejudice, so Taboada may renew his request if later developments show a likelihood of success or a need for discovery or an evidentiary hearing, and the merits of his detention remain undecided.
Why It Matters
The order applies the discretionary counsel-appointment framework to an immigration detainee's § 2241 petition and carefully distinguishes a request for legal assistance from a ruling on the lawfulness of the detention itself. It shows that financial eligibility and the seriousness or complexity of immigration issues do not, standing alone, establish that appointment of counsel is required.
The denial was expressly without prejudice and rested on the present, early record. The court's directions for a response and for necessary records remained part of the ongoing process for evaluating the petition, while the questions whether discovery or an evidentiary hearing would be required, and the merits of Taboada's due process challenge, remained open for later resolution.