Chestnut

Tan Trung Vay v. Christopher Chestnut, Warden of the California City Correctional Detention Facility, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 19, 20251:25-cv-01810California278 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAN TRUNG VAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01810-JLT-SKO (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. [Doc. 6] CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden of the California City Correctional Detention Facility, et al., Respondents.

17 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 18, 2025, Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.