From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alvarez v. Kristo

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Mar 3, 2009
CV-08-2226-PHX-DGC (DKD) (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2009)

Opinion

CV-08-2226-PHX-DGC (DKD).

March 3, 2009


ORDER


Petitioner Fortino Alvarez is an inmate of the Gila River Indian Community Department of Rehabilitation and Supervision. On December 5, 2008, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. #1. The petition asserts, among other things, that Petitioner was denied due process, the right to counsel, and the right to a jury trial. Id.

Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. #3. Because Petitioner's claims were well presented, the Court concluded that appointed counsel was not warranted and denied Petitioner's motion. Dkt. #4. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #5. Concluding that Petitioner had not made the showing necessary to warrant reconsideration, the Court denied the motion. Dkt. #8.

The Court has received a letter from Daniel Kaplan, an attorney with the office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona. Dkt. #11. Mr. Kaplan explains that his office assisted Petitioner in drafting the petition and that issues raised by the petition are of some significance in the federal courts and have not reached the appellate level. Id. Mr. Kaplan asks that his office be appointed to represent Petitioner. Id.

In light of Mr. Kaplan's letter, the Court concluded that additional consideration of Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel was warranted. A hearing was held on February 27, 2009, to determine whether the Court should appoint the office of the Federal Public Defender to represent Petitioner. Dkt. #13. Among other facts, the Court has learned that Petitioner is serving a prison term of up to five years, that he was not represented by counsel at the trial level, and that the tribal facility in which he is incarcerated has no law library or other form of legal assistance. The Court concludes that the interests of justice require that the Federal Public Defender be appointed to represent Petitioner in this matter. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who . . . is seeking relief under section 2241"); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) ("The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel."); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Federal Public Defender is appointed to represent Petitioner in this matter.
2. The orders denying Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #4) and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #8) are vacated.


Summaries of

Alvarez v. Kristo

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Mar 3, 2009
CV-08-2226-PHX-DGC (DKD) (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2009)
Case details for

Alvarez v. Kristo

Case Details

Full title:Fortino Alvarez, Petitioner, v. Rebecca Kristo, Acting Chief…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Mar 3, 2009

Citations

CV-08-2226-PHX-DGC (DKD) (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2009)

Citing Cases

Trueblood v. Cappola

Some districts have noted additional circumstances, beyond the mere lack of law library access, that could…