Saddozai v. Bolanos

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2019
• Docket: 5:18-cv-04047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 18-04047 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. RECONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF 13 COUNSEL; GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 14 LOMU, et al., TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION 15 Defendants. 16 (Docket Nos. 34, 36) 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 5, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to 20 amend. (Docket No. 11.) In the same order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for 21 appointment of counsel. (Id.; Docket No. 4.) On July 11, 2019, the Court screened the 22 amended complaint and found it stated cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment for 23 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Lomu and Copeland, 24 officers at the Maguire Correctional Facility in San Mateo County. (Docket No. 22.) The 25 Court ordered the matter served on Defendants, who were directed to file a dispositive 26 motion or notice regarding such motion within ninety-one days from the date the order was 27 filed. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider appointment of counsel based on 1 modify the deadline for filing a dispositive motion set in the court’s Order of Service due 2 to delays in discovery. (Docket No. 36.) 3 Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel, (Docket Nos. 4, 16), 4 which the Court denied for lack of extraordinary circumstances. (Docket Nos. 11, 22.) In 5 his motion to reconsider appointment of counsel, Plaintiff asserts that new problems have 6 come up in his case that are beyond his capabilities to handle and are restricting his 7 abilities to litigate this matter. (Docket No. 34 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he 8 is not able to utilize prison facility law library services because of threats, harassment, and 9 discrimination by prison law librarian and her inmate clerks who are preventing him access 10 to the courts. (Id.) Plaintiff then makes allegations involving retaliation, false disciplinary 11 charges, and the denial of medical. (Id. at 3-7.) Plaintiff claims that he needs legal 12 assistance in order to “file such claims” and to pursue “court actions for constitutional 13 violations arising from prison conditions.” (Id. at 7.) 14 Plaintiff has twice been advised that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a 15 civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. 16 See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 17 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), 18 withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 19 banc). This is certainly not the situation which Plaintiff faces since this action involves 20 inadequate medical care and not the loss of his physical liberty. Furthermore, the decision 21 to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound 22 discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. 23 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s motion includes new allegations 24 against individuals who are not a party to this action and are therefore beyond the scope of 25 this action. Nor does Plaintiff explain how the difficult circumstances he faces have 26 specifically made it difficult to pursue this particular action. Rather, the challenges he 1 || those faced by other pro se prisoner litigants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 2 |} reconsideration of appointment of counsel is DENIED for lack of exceptional 3 || circumstances. See Agyeman vy. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 4 Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 5 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This denial is without 6 || prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date should the 7 || circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. 8 The Court construes Defendants’ counsel’s letter as a motion for an extension of 9 || time and GRANTS it for good cause appearing. Defendants’ dispositive motion shall be 10 || filed no later than January 2, 2020, which is an extension of eighty-four days from the 11 || original deadline of October 10, 2019. Briefing shall proceed thereafter in accordance «= 12 |} with the schedule set forth in the Court’s Order of Service. (Docket No. 22.)

13 This order terminates Docket Nos. 34 and 36. IT IS SO ORDERED. from homer) 15 || Dated: _October 17, 2019_ BETH LABSON FREEMAN A 6 United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Denying Recon. For Appt. of Counsel; Granting EOT to File Disp. M. PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\04047Saddozai_deny-atty recon&eotdisp 26 27