(PC) Saddozai v. Ceballos et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause; GRANTING 21 Motion for Extension of Time; and DENYING 21 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/13/2020. Response to the Court's screening order due within 30 days. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
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., Defendants. Case No. 1:20-cv-00358-NONE-JLT (PC) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Docs. 20, 21) 16 17 On May 10, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first 18 amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 10.) After receiving extensions 19 of time (Docs. 13, 19), Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. 20 Therefore, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for 21 his failure to prosecute. (Doc. 20.) 22 On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, in which he 23 requests an additional extension of time. (Doc. 21.) Good cause appearing, the Court will 24 discharge its order to show cause and grant Plaintiff an extension of time nunc pro tunc. 25 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff does not have a 26 constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 27 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party under 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in 1 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 2 to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 4 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 5 whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 6 success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 7 the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 8 In the present case, the Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances. Even 9 10 11 if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations that, if proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. In addition, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As 12 explained in its screening order, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 10 at 13 3.) And, based on a review of the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot 14 adequately articulate his claims. For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 20) is DISCHARGED; 16 2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 21) is GRANTED; 17 3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of service of this order to comply with the Court’s screening order (Doc. 10); and, 18 19 4. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 21) is DENIED. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?