(PC) Uhuru v. Eldridge

Opinion

KOHEN DIALLO UHURU, No. 2:19-cv-1119 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER LAURA ELDRIDGE, et al., Defendants. On August 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint, as well as a request that the court reconsider appointing counsel for plaintiff. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for extension of time is granted. The undersigned has reviewed the record and, upon reconsideration, finds that appointment of counsel is inappropriate. Plaintiff’s complaint raised numerous allegations against 19 defendants at different prisons. Given the improper joinder of such claims, the undersigned is unable to determine whether plaintiff can state a cognizable civil rights claim that is properly filed in this district. As stated in the prior order denying counsel, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The undersigned is unable to determine plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits until an operative pleading is on file, and the court has screened the complaint to discern whether plaintiff stated a cognizable civil rights claim. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 12) is granted; 2. Plaintiff is granted up to and including September 12, 2019, in which to file an amended complaint; 3. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is granted; and 4. Upon reconsideration, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied without prejudice. Dated: August 13, 2019 Aectl Aharon ONITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE B uhurl 119.36