Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-001560-RBM-MMP
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
CHRISTIAN GOMEZ-DOMINGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL
DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-001560-RBM-MMP
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc.
6]
On 	March 	9, 	2026, 	Petitioner 	Christian 	Gomez-Dominguez 	(“Petitioner”),
proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Application and Declaration to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP Motion”) (Doc. 2). The Court granted the IFP Motion because Petitioner “attest[ed]
that he [had] no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee” and set a briefing schedule on the
Petition. (Doc. 3 at 12.) Petitioner now has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (“Motion to Appoint Counsel”). (Doc. 6.)
“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). 	“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
Case 3:26-cv-01560-RBM-MMP Document 7 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-001560-RBM-MMP
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
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). The
appointment of counsel is left to the sound discretion of the Court. 	See Terrovona v.
Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Court has already found that Petitioner lacks funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee;
since that time, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody and no circumstances
would have changed to support a finding that Petitioner can now afford to hire counsel.
Additionally, Petitioner represents that he “has a strong change of success on the merits,”
and that “the complexity of the law on immigration detention and Petitioner’s status as a
detained immigrant” strengthen his case for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 6 at 2.) The
Court agrees and finds that representation is necessary given the complexity and potential
validity of the constitutional, statutory, and procedural issues presented. Weygandt v. Look,
718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the Court CONDITIONALLY APPOINTS
Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel.
Counsel for Petitioner shall file a Notice of Appearance on or before March 27,
2026. 	The briefing schedule remains unchanged; Petitioner may still file a reply, now
through counsel, on or before April 10, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. (Doc. 3 at 2.) The Clerk of the
Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to Federal Defenders of San
Diego, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 24, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01560-RBM-MMP Document 7 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2