Gorlachev v. Johnson et al

Filing 6

ORDER: (1) Granting 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; (2) Requiring Response From Government. The Court Appoints James Fife of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. for Petitioner Roman Gorlachev. Answer by Respondent due 2/27/2015, Traverse by Petitioner due 3/27/2015. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/29/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROMAN GORLACHEV,

11
12

CASE NO. 14-cv-2861-GPC-JMA
Plaintiff,

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

v.

13

[Dkt. No. 3.]

14
15
16

JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER

(2) REQUIRING RESPONSE FROM
GOVERNMENT
[Dkt. No. 1.]

Petitioner Roman Gorlachev (“Petitioner”), a Department of Homeland Security
detainee, has submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, together with a motion for appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.)
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), a district court may appoint counsel for a
financially eligible habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interest
of justice so require.” In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court “must
evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner
to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”
Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

28
-1-

14-cv-2861-GPC-JMA

1

The Supreme Court has held that a post-removal detention exceeding six months

2 is presumptively unreasonable. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
3 Here, Petitioner’s claim that he has been detained for more than eight months following
4 a final removability determination, if true, triggers the Zadvydas presumption, which
5 indicates a strong likelihood of success on the merits on a complex petition. See
6 United States v. Ahumada-Aguilar, 295 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (“With only a
7 small degree of hyperbole, the immigration laws have been termed ‘second only to the
8 Internal Revenue Code in complexity.’” (citation omitted)). Moreover, Petitioner is
9 financially eligible for appointment of counsel as his request to proceed in forma
10 pauperis reflects only a $52.49 trust account balance at the facility in which he is
11 presently confined, and no assets or income. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2-4.) Accordingly, the
12 Court grants Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, and appoints Federal Defenders
13 of San Diego, Inc. (James Fife) as Petitioner’s counsel in this case.
14

The United States Attorney shall file and serve a response no later than

15 February 27, 2015. The Government’s response shall include all documents relevant
16 to the issues raised in the petition. Any reply shall be due by March 27, 2015.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19 DATED: January 29, 2015
20
21

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

14-cv-2861-GPC-JMA