Khan v. Payton

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MUHAMMAD KHAN, Case No. 20-cv-03086 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 13 v. DENYING MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING 14 DEFENDANTS TO FILE A REPLY M. PAYTON, et al., 15 16 Defendants. (Docket Nos. 60, 64)

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 against an officer at San Quentin State Prison. On April 11, 2023, the Court 20 rescreened the first amended complaint, dismissed non-cognizable claims, and ordered 21 service of the cognizable claims. Dkt. No. 52. On July 6, 2023, the Court granted 22 Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion, setting a deadline 23 of September 12, 2023. Dkt. No. 58. 24 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel based on indigency, limited 25 ability to conduct legal research and access to resources, and because he has exhausted all 26 his remedies and his claims are cognizable. Dkt. No. 61 at 3. Plaintiff also asserts that 27 counsel would be beneficial overall to the prosecution of this case. Id. at 2. Defendants 1 || summary of the relevant case law. Dkt. No. 63. 2 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant 3 || may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social 4 || Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) 5 || (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds 6 || on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel 7 || to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial 8 || court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 9 |} 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff's grounds are not exceptional among prisoner- 10 || plaintiffs. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances. See 11 || Agveman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); E 13 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). S 14 Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Defendant to reply to the complaint. Dkt. 3 15 || No. 64. Defendants properly waived their right to file a reply to the complaint under 42 2 16 || U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Dkt. No. 54. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. Dkt. No. 64. 5 17 This order terminates Docket Nos. 60 and 64. 5 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: — August 14,2023. Adiinfhacian__ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 PRO-SPBLECR2003080Khan atyémot 26 27