Saddozai v. Bolanes ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 18-cv-04511-BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME TO 13 FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 14 BOLANES, et al., COUNSEL 15 Defendants. 16 (Docket No. 52) 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently housed at the Salinas Valley State Prison 19 (“SVSP”), filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 20 personnel and medical staff at Corcoran State Prison. On July 11, 2019, the Court issued 21 an order of service directing Defendants to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. No. 14. On 22 January 30, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 31. 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a third extension of time to file opposition to the motion for 24 summary judgment due to lack of access to legal resources and facility lockdown related to 25 the COVID-19 pandemic. Dkt. No. 52. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is 26 GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of twenty-eight (28) days, such that 27 his opposition is due no later than August 21, 2020. Defendants’ reply shall be filed no 1 || later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 2 Plaintiff also requests appointment for counsel, making this his third such request. 3 || The motion is DENIED for the same reasons his previous motions were denied. Dkt. Nos. 4 || 14,25. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant 5 || may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social 6 || Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) 7 || (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds 8 || on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel g || to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial 10 || court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 11 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). As before, Plaintiff's asserted grounds do not establish 2 exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this time, and his present E 13 || circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic are no different from those of many S 14 || inmates throughout California. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel 3 15 || 1s DENIED without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman, 390 16 || F.3d at 1103; Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 5 18 This order terminates Docket No. 52. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED 20 || Dated: _ August 5,2020 hol Lun concn! BETH LABSON FREEMAN 71 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 || PRO-SEBLECR 180481 1Saddorst cot opps