Ramil

Ramil v. Beckhelm

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 14, 20223:22-cv-01655California379 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MALIKOV RAMIL, Case No.: 22CV1655-GPC(BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

v. REQUEST TO APPOINT COUNSEL

KELLEY BECKHELM, [Dkt. No. 2.] Respondent. 16 Before the Court is Petitioner’s request to appoint counsel because he cannot afford one. (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner Malikov Ramil, proceeding pro se, is an immigration detainee housed at the Otay Mesa Detention Center and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from his prolonged detention. There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process…

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.