(PC) Saddozai v. Ceballos et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING 18 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time and DENYING 18 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/9/2020. Plaintiff shall have until 8/10/2020 to comply with the Court's screening order. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHIKEB SADDOZAI,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. CEBALLOS, et al.,

Case No. 1:20-cv-00358-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Doc. 18)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff requests a second extension of time to comply with the Court’s screening order

18

(Doc. 10). (See Doc. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff states that his access to the prison law library has been

19

restricted. (Id. at 2.) The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request.

20

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff does not have a

21

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,

22

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party under 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in

24

“exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant

25

to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

26

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the

27

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining

28

whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of

1

success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of

2

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

3

In the present case, the Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances. Even

4

if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations that, if proven, would entitle him to

5

relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. In

6

addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination as to whether

7

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of the records in this case, the

8

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. For the reasons set forth

9

above, the Court ORDERS:

10

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until
August 10, 2020, to comply with the Court’s screening order.

11
12

2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 9, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2