(PC) Shikeb Saddozai v. Hosey ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, Case No. 1:19-cv-01611-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 23) 14 K. HOSEY, M. BOUTTE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel incorporated within motion 18 for extension of time and motion for preliminary injunction filed September 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 19 25).1 Plaintiff Shikeb Saddozai is currently incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State Prison and is 20 proceeding pro se on his civil rights complaint filed on November 14, 2019. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 21 was granted in forma pauperis status. (Doc. No. 5). 22 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 23 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 24 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 25 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil 26 1 The court granted plaintiff an extension of time to file his second amended complaint until April 27 22, 2021 by Text Only Order entered March 23, 2021. See Doc. No. 26. The court will address plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction by a report and recommendation. In the future, 28 plaintiff should only seek one form of relief in a motion. 1 | action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people 2 | unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) 3 | (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 4 | citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 5 | “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The court may consider many factors including, but not 6 | limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff 7 | to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, to 8 | determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Jd.; see also Rand vy. 9 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 10 | banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 11 In support of his motion, plaintiff argues that he has limited access to the law library, is 12 | unable to comprehend legal cases, and has mental and physical health issues. (Doc. No. 23 at 3-4, 13 | 8-10). The court does not find exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel for 14 | plaintiff. This court is at the early stages of the litigation process. Although plaintiff is proceeding 15 | pro se and is incarcerated, he faces the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face. The court liberally 16 | construes pro se pleadings. A review of the docket further shows he is capable of adequately 17 | articulating his claims and seeking relief. Further, plaintiff's mental and physical impairments have 18 | not impeded plaintiffs ability to litigate this case and his references to various legal authorities 19 || defy his claim that he does not have access to legal resources. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED without 22 | prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: _ March 23, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28