(PC) Saddozai v. Ceballos et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J. CEBALLOS, et al.,
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
(Docs. 20, 21)
On May 10, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first
amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 10.) After receiving extensions
of time (Docs. 13, 19), Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided.
Therefore, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
his failure to prosecute. (Doc. 20.)
On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, in which he
requests an additional extension of time. (Doc. 21.) Good cause appearing, the Court will
discharge its order to show cause and grant Plaintiff an extension of time nunc pro tunc.
Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff does not have a
constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,
1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in
“exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant
to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining
whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of
the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances. Even
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
explained in its screening order, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 10 at
3.) And, based on a review of the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot
adequately articulate his claims. For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS:
1. The Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 20) is DISCHARGED;
2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 21) is GRANTED;
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,
4. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2020
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?