Maggay v. Micke

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RODERICK MAGGAY, Case No. 21-cv-04994 BLF (PR) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; v. DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS OFFICER MICKE, et al., MOOT 14 Defendants. 15 (Docket Nos. 31, 32)

16 17 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in pro se pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, against several officers at the Santa Rita County Jail. Dkt. No. 1. 19 Currently, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is due no later than November 15, 2022. 20 Dkt. No. 30. 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel based on lack of legal 22 knowledge, complexity of the issues, need for expert testimony, need for an investigation 23 and discovery, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the meritorious nature of the 24 claims. Dkt. No. 31. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an 25 indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. 26 Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 27 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on 1 || request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound 2 || discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. 3 || Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). The grounds set forth for appointment of 4 || counsel do not distinguish Plaintiff from other pro se prisoners to constitute exceptional 5 circumstances, and until he files a second amended complaint, it is unclear whether this 6 || matter will proceed at all. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice for lack 7 || of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman vy. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 8 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 g || F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 10 || 1986). This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel 11 || ata future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. 2 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. E 13 || 32. However, Plaintiff was already granted IFP status early on in this action. See Dkt. No. S 14 || 10. Accordingly, this recent IFP motion is DENIED as moot. 3 15 This order terminates Docket Nos. 31 and 32. 16 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: _ October 25, 2022 _ Aad Lio hconar 5 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying Mot. for Appt. of Counsel; Denying IFP P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\04994Maggay_deny.atty&IFP.docx 26 27