Gahano v. Renaud et al
Filing
29
ORDER. Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits (dkt. # 21 ) is GRANTED. Respondents are permitted to file a reply brief to Petitioner's Response by January 29, 2021. Government's return memorandum (dkt. # 16 ) is re-n oted for January 29, 2021. Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney "for the Conflict of Interest" (dkt. # 23 ) is DENIED. Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondents' "Exhibits B, D, E, and J attached to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss" (dkt. # 24 ) is DENIED. The Court reconsiders its previous Order Denying Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 17 ) and now GRANTS Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 3). This matter is referred to the Pro Bono Panel to represent Petitioner. After that, the Court will issue an Order appointing an attorney, should one be identified. Respondents are directed to respond to Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Removal (dkt. # 25 ) on or before January 29, 2021. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (PM) cc: Petitioner via USPS
Case 2:20-cv-01094-MJP-MLP Document 29 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
DENGE LEMO GAHANO,
Petitioner,
11
ORDER
v.
12
13
Case No. C20-1094-MJP-MLP
NATALIE ASHER, et al.,
Respondents.
14
15
16
17
I.
INTRODUCTION
Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s: (1) Motion for Leave to Exceed Page
18
Limits (dkt. # 21); (2) Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney “for the Conflict of
19
Interest” (dkt. # 23); and (3) Motion to Strike Respondents’ Exhibits “B, D, E, and J attached to
20
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss” (dkt. # 24). Furthermore, the Court has reconsidered its earlier
21
denial of Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 17).
22
23
Having considered the Petitioner’s submissions, the governing law, and the balance of the
record, Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits (dkt. # 21) is GRANTED,
24
ORDER - 1
Case 2:20-cv-01094-MJP-MLP Document 29 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 6
1
Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney “for the Conflict of Interest” (dkt.
2
# 23) is DENIED, and Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Respondents’ Exhibits “B, D, E, and J
3
attached to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss” (dkt. # 24) is DENIED. In addition, the Court now
4
GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 3), as further explained below.
5
II.
DISCUSSION
6
A.
Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits (dkt. # 21)
7
First, Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits identifies that his Response in
8
Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (“Petitioner’s Response”) (dkt. # 22) exceeded
9
page limits in order to fully address the issues raised by Respondents and Respondents’ attached
10
exhibits. (Dkt. # 21 at 1-2.) Petitioner’s Response totals 29 pages. (See dkt. # 22.) Under Local
11
Rule 7(e)(3), briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss shall not exceed 24-pages. If the Court
12
grants leave to file an over-length motion, the brief in opposition will automatically be allowed
13
an equal number of additional pages. See Local Rule 7(f)(4). In all cases, the reply brief shall not
14
exceed one-half the total length of the brief filed in opposition. Id.
15
Here, the Court finds Petitioner has provided good cause for filing an over-length
16
Response, and therefore, Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits is GRANTED,
17
and Petitioner’s Response is accepted. Consequently, Respondents are permitted to file a reply
18
brief to Petitioner’s Response, with an additional two (2) pages authorized, for a total of 14
19
pages.
20
B.
21
Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney “for the Conflict of Interest”
22
seeks to disqualify the Office of the Attorney General and attorney Tim Ramnitz from appearing
23
in this matter. (Dkt. # 23 at 1-2.) Petitioner generally argues that the Office of Attorney General
24
ORDER - 2
Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney (dkt. # 23)
Case 2:20-cv-01094-MJP-MLP Document 29 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 6
1
is not a proper respondent in this action and was included due to Petitioner’s ignorance on the
2
issue. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner additionally argues that Mr. Ramnitz has a conflict of interest in his
3
representation of Respondents in this case because of his familiarity with the immigration judge
4
who adjudicated his immigration status in his immigration proceedings below. (Id. at 3-4.)
5
The United States Attorney General’s Office was previously named by Petitioner as a
6
respondent but was terminated from this action by the Clerk’s Office on August 6, 2020, after
7
Petitioner submitted his amended habeas petition. (See dkt # 9.) Furthermore, Petitioner’s
8
allegations concerning Mr. Ramnitz’s conflict of interest because of his familiarity with the
9
immigration judge who handled Petitioner’s case are merely speculative and conclusory.
10
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney is DENIED.
11
C.
12
Next, Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Respondents’ Exhibits “B, D, E, and J attached to
Motion to Strike (dkt. # 24)
13
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss” seeks to have the enumerated exhibits stricken as improperly
14
redacted. (Dkt. # 24 at 1-2.) Petitioner generally argues that Respondents failed to claim that the
15
redactions were privileged, failed to provide evidence that that the redactions were done solely
16
on the basis of personal identifiers, and that the “systematic redaction” of the exhibits violates his
17
due process rights in adjusting his status to a lawful permanent resident. (Id. at 2-3; see dkt. # 16,
18
Exs. B, D, E, J.) Petitioner additionally takes issue with various facts specifically asserted in
19
Exhibit A. (Id. at 4; see dkt. # 16, Ex. A.) However, based on the Court’s review of the record
20
and Respondents’ attached exhibits to its Motion to Dismiss, the Court does not find that
21
Respondent’s exhibits were inappropriately redacted in this matter. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
22
Motion to Strike Respondents’ Exhibits “B, D, E, and J attached to Respondent’s Motion to
23
Dismiss” is DENIED.
24
ORDER - 3
Case 2:20-cv-01094-MJP-MLP Document 29 Filed 01/07/21 Page 4 of 6
1
D.
Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 3)
2
Finally, the Court issues this Order sua sponte after reconsidering its earlier denial of
3
Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. # 17.) The Court finds that the developments
4
outlined below warrant appointment of counsel.
5
“In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court ‘may request an attorney to represent
6
any person unable to afford counsel’”—a decision within the Court’s sound discretion. Agyeman
7
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). In
8
considering a motion to appoint counsel, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success
9
on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
10
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
11
1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
12
The Court finds appointment of counsel appropriate. The Court earlier denied Petitioner’s
13
Motion to Appoint Counsel, finding it unlikely that Petitioner would succeed on the merits, that
14
he was capable of articulating his claims pro se, and that his fear of retaliatory removal was
15
unfounded because the Ninth Circuit stayed his removal. (Dkt. # 17 at 2.) However, three
16
developments warrant reconsideration. First, the Ninth Circuit’s stay of removal is no longer
17
pending, and it appears Respondents are seeking Petitioner’s immediate removal. (See dkt. # 27.)
18
Second, Petitioner’s habeas petition raises novel issues related to the application of Ramos v.
19
Lousiana, 590 U.S. ____ (2020) to the validity of his detention which the Ninth Circuit did not
20
address in ruling on his administrative appeal. See Gahano v. Barr, No. 18-72796,
21
Memorandum, Dkt. No. 61-1 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2020). Acting pro se, Petitioner faces significant
22
challenges in litigating a novel and complex legal issue without direct guidance from the Ninth
23
Circuit on which he may well succeed. Third, Petitioner pursues a separate civil case before the
24
ORDER - 4
Case 2:20-cv-01094-MJP-MLP Document 29 Filed 01/07/21 Page 5 of 6
1
Court that raises matters collaterally related to his continued detention. See Gahano v. Langford,
2
et al., C20-5451-MJP-MLP (W.D. Wash.).
3
Given these changed circumstances, the Court finds that appointed counsel would
4
considerably assist in the efficient prosecution of this matter and the Court’s resolution of the
5
matter. The Court therefore reconsiders its prior Order (dkt. # 17), GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion
6
to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 3), and refers this matter to Pro Bono Panel to represent Petitioner.
7
After that, the Court will issue an Order appointing an attorney, should one be identified.
8
9
10
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS:
(1)
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits (dkt. # 21) is GRANTED,
11
and Petitioner’s over-length motion (dkt. # 22) is accepted. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f)(4),
12
Respondents are permitted to file a reply brief to Petitioner’s Response by January 29, 2021,
13
with an additional two (2) pages authorized, for a total of 14 pages. The Clerk is directed to
14
re-note the Government’s return memorandum (dkt. # 16) for January 29, 2021;
15
16
17
18
19
(2)
Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify the Government Attorney “for the Conflict of
Interest” (dkt. # 23) is DENIED;
(3)
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Respondents’ Exhibits “B, D, E, and J attached to
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss” (dkt. # 24) is DENIED;
(4)
The Court reconsiders its previous Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint
20
Counsel (dkt. # 17) and now GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (dkt. # 3). This
21
matter is referred to the Pro Bono Panel to represent Petitioner. After that, the Court will issue an
22
Order appointing an attorney, should one be identified;
23
24
ORDER - 5
Case 2:20-cv-01094-MJP-MLP Document 29 Filed 01/07/21 Page 6 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
(5)
Respondents are directed to respond to Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Removal
(dkt. # 25) on or before January 29, 2021; and
(6)
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the
Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.
Dated this 7th day of January, 2021.
A
6
7
MICHELLE L. PETERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?