Henareh Siavosh v. United States

[5] JS-6 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION [10] 11 HENAREH SIAVOSH, CASE NO. CV 20-07805-JFW(AS) 12 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Respondent. [16] 17 I. BACKGROUND [18] 19 On August 25, 2000, Henareh Siavosh (“Petitioner”), a federal 20 prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an untitled motion (“Motion”), 21 stating that he seeks compassionate release “due to the COVID-19 [22] pandemic and under the CARES ACT and 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)-2.” [23] (Docket No. 1). [25] To the extent Petitioner has filed a motion for release, [26] 27 Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice based on 28 Petitioner’s failure to provide any supporting facts. 1 To the extent Petitioner’s Motion can be construed as a 2 Petition for Writ of Federal Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 2241, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice because Petitioner [4] (1) has failed to identify the proper Respondent, the name of the [5] person having custody of him; (2) has failed to plainly state [6] “[t]he statutory or other basis for the exercise of jurisdiction [7] 8 by this Court,” in violation of Central District Local Rule 8-1 9 and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a); (3) has alleged vague and conclusory 10 “claims,” in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a) and 8(d); and (4) [11] does not appear to challenge the manner, location or conditions of [12] the execution of his sentence, see Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 13 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). [15] To the extent Petitioner is seeking the appointment of [16] 17 counsel, Petitioner’s request is DENIED. There is no 18 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action. See 19 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); accord [20] Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The decision [21] to appoint counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial [22] court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman [23] v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. [24] 25 2004)(internal quotation marks omitted). To decide whether 26 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the 27 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the [28] 1 |} petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 3 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, [4] 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Based on the sparseness of [5] the allegations in the Motion, the Court cannot conclude that [6] 7 Petitioner’s “claims” are potentially meritorious or that the facts g || or legal issues involved in the case are unusually complex. Nothing 9 || in this Order is intended to preclude Petitioner from retaining 10 || counsel on his own. [12] Il. ORDER [14] 1s ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is denied without 16 prejudice. 17 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. [18] DATED: September 3, 2020 [19] 20 fr A the LL BE: 21 JOHN F. WALTER TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [22] 23 || presented by: [24] 25 /s/ ALKA SAGAR 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE