Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1174-JES-BLM
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
IGOR POPOV,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF IMPERIAL DETENTION
FACILITY; CURRENT OR ACTING
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, San Diego
Field Office, United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; CURRENT
OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE
DIRECTOR, United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; CURRENT
OR ACTING SECRETARY, Unites
States Department of Homeland Security;
and CURRENT OR ACTING UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1174-JES-BLM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
[ECF No. 2]
Before the Court is Petitioner Igor Popov’s (“Petitioner”) motion to appoint counsel.
ECF No. 2. After due consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to appoint counsel.
Case 3:26-cv-01174-JES-BLM Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-1174-JES-BLM
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
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging his immigration detention as unduly prolonged. See generally ECF No. 1. The
Petition contains a description of the facts of Petitioner’s immigration custody and the legal
basis he states for relief. Id. On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint
counsel. ECF No. 2.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless
an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t
Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
While 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(1) gives district courts discretion to “request” that an
attorney represent indigent civil litigants, it may only be exercised upon a showing of
“exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Carr Corp. Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.
2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). When assessing whether
exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must undergo “an evaluation of both ‘the
likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789
F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.
1983)). Courts must review both factors before deciding whether to appoint counsel, and
neither factor is individually dispositive. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that
exceptional circumstances exist. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970.
III. DISCUSSION
The Petition states a description of the present stage of Petitioner’s ongoing asylum
claim, his prior immigration and criminal legal cases, his current detention and its
conditions, and the legal bases he alleges warrant release or a bond hearing in his case. See
generally ECF No. 1. Petitioner appears able to adequately represent and litigate his claims
for relief. While it is too early for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success
on the merits, he fails to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances” that would
Case 3:26-cv-01174-JES-BLM Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-1174-JES-BLM
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
warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ request for appointment of counsel.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
motion to appoint counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01174-JES-BLM Document 5 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3