Lara v. Jusino
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:22-cv-04899
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lara v. Jusino, Judge Gilliam ordered a response to Lara’s federal sentence-calculation claims and denied her counsel request without prejudice.
Zoraida Lara and Jusino, with the respondent required to answer or file a procedural motion and Lara’s request for appointed counsel denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Lara v. Jusino, Zoraida Lara, a federal inmate representing herself, challenged the calculation of her sentence. She alleged that her deportable status caused her to be denied good-time credits under the First Step Act and violated equal-protection and due-process rights.
The court found that Lara’s petition stated claims that could be considered in a federal sentence-review case. It ordered Jusino to respond within 91 days by filing an answer or, instead, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds.
Judge Gilliam denied Lara’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning the court could appoint counsel later if circumstances required it. The order did not decide whether Lara was entitled to the requested sentence relief.
The detailed version
- Lara v. Jusino · No. 3:22-cv-04899
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Zoraida Lara, an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution–Dublin, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge the execution or calculation of a federal sentence. She had paid the filing fee.
The opinion states that Lara pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of Louisiana to one count of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and one count of conspiring to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Lara alleged that she is a lawful resident of the United States and a deportable prisoner, and that she was denied good-time credits available under the First Step Act of 2018 because she is subject to deportation. She claimed that this violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
Order to Show Cause
The court concluded that, when read liberally because Lara was representing herself, the petition stated claims eligible for federal sentence-review relief. The court therefore ordered Jusino to show why the requested relief should not be granted. This was not a decision on whether Lara’s claims ultimately succeed.
The court directed the respondent to file and serve an answer within 91 days. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within that period. If an answer is filed, Lara may respond within 35 days after the answer; if a motion to dismiss is filed, the order sets deadlines for Lara’s opposition and the respondent’s reply.
Request for Appointed Counsel
Lara requested appointed counsel, arguing that the case involved issues of national significance and that counsel would help the court fairly decide the claims. The court explained that there is no automatic constitutional right to counsel in these proceedings. A district court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation.
The court denied Lara’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to appointing counsel later on its own initiative if circumstances require it. The order also required service of the order and petition materials, directed Lara to keep the court informed of address changes, and warned that failure to follow orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.