Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01336-RBM-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ENMANUEL ALEJANDRO DURAN-
MONTILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01336-RBM-DDL
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
On March 2, 2026, Petitioner Enmanuel Alejandro Duran-Montilla (“Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner argues
that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “failed to comply with regulations when
revoking [his] parole,” thereby violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 	(Id. at 4, 9–13.) 	Petitioner also represents that he
“spoke to a lawyer from Federal Defenders who said they would be willing to represent
[him] if this Court appointed them,” and “officially request[s] to appoint Federal Defenders
to represent [him].” (Id. at 5.) The Court construes this as a Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Because there is insufficient information for the Court to resolve it, the Motion to Appoint
Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity
to file another motion to appoint counsel.
Case 3:26-cv-01336-RBM-DDL Document 2 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-01336-RBM-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the [C]ourt determines that the
interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible
person who . . . (B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.”
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). A “financially eligible person” is one who is “financially unable
to obtain adequate representation in accordance with this section.” 	Id. § 3006A(a). 	“In
deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, 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) (citations omitted).
Here, Petitioner includes no information regarding whether he is financially unable
to obtain adequate representation. Nor does he represent that he is unable to articulate his
claims without counsel. Accordingly, the Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without
prejudice. On or before March 23, 2026, Petitioner MUST either: (1) file a new Motion
to Appoint Counsel addressing the deficiencies identified above; or (2) indicate that he
wishes to proceed without counsel.
In light of the likelihood that potentially appointed counsel may file an amended
Petition, the Court will not order a response to the Petition at this point. 	The Court will
issue a further order after it receives Petitioner’s filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 9, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01336-RBM-DDL Document 2 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2