Zhakuov v. Noem et al

1
3:26-cv-00288-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
KANAT ZHAKUOV,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. 3]
AND SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
On January 16, 2026, Petitioner Kanat Zhakuov (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,
filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.)
Petitioner also moved for appointment of counsel, but did not sufficiently address the
circumstances that would allow the Court to appoint counsel. (See Doc. 2 at 2.) Therefore,
the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice and allowed him
until February 2, 2026 to file a renewed motion. 	(Id.) 	Petitioner timely complied.
(See Doc. 3.)
“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.”
Case 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL Document 4 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00288-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
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 represents that he does not have any money because he has “not
been working during [his] detention for over a year,” and that neither he nor his family
members “have any assets, investment or savings on bank account.” (Doc. 3 at 1.) He has
thus sufficiently alleged that he cannot afford to hire counsel. “The Court also finds that
representation is necessary given the complexity and potential validity of the constitutional,
statutory, and procedural issues presented.” Astafev v. Warden, Case No. 3:26-cv-00313-
RBM-AHG, ECF No. 4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026) (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,
954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS Federal
Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.
Moreover, the Court finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted.
See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal
is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably
incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d
1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that pro se complaints are liberally construed and do
not need to identify the constitutional source of the claims raised).
Petitioner 	may 	file 	an 	amended 	petition 	on 	or 	before 	February 	13, 	2026.
Respondents shall respond to the amended petition on or before February 20, 2026. Their
Response shall include as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination
of the issues raised, including any and all relevant documents reflecting Petitioner’s
immigration history. 	Petitioner shall file a reply on or before February 24, 2026. 	The
matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further
order from the Court.
Case 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL Document 4 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00288-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
The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and
this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office and to Federal Defenders of San Diego,
Inc. 	Counsel for Petitioner shall file a notice of appearance on or before February 10,
2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 6, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL Document 4 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3