Castillo
v.
Ice Field Office Dir.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLEApr 4, 2012
CASE NO. C12-0502-MJP-MAT (W.D. Wash. Apr. 4, 2012)

CASE NO. C12-0502-MJP-MAT

04-04-2012

ELSTON CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Having considered petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 unless an evidentiary hearing is required, because they are civil, not criminal, in nature. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the "interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice are best served by the appointment of counsel in this matter. Moreover, upon review, it appears petitioner has been able to successfully articulate his claims thus far. If the Court later requires an evidentiary hearing, then counsel will be appointed, assuming petitioner meets the indigency requirement.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to petitioner and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

____________


Mary Alice Theiler


United States Magistrate Judge