Saddozai v. Nelson
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-04492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Saddozai v. Nelson, Judge Freeman denied Saddozai’s third request for appointed counsel because extraordinary circumstances were not shown.
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, was denied appointed counsel for the third time, subject to possible later appointment if circumstances warranted it.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Nelson, Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil-rights case. He cited his inability to afford counsel, the complexity of the issues, limited legal knowledge and library access, and the possible need for counsel at trial.
The court had denied two earlier requests for the same reasons. It said Saddozai’s second amended complaint was still undergoing its initial review, so it was not yet clear that the case would proceed to trial. The court also said his other reasons did not distinguish him from other self-represented prisoners.
Judge Freeman denied the third motion for appointment of counsel for lack of extraordinary circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if the circumstances warranted it, and the order terminated the motion’s docket entry.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Nelson · No. 5:18-cv-04492
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 17, 2019
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend and denied his first request for appointed counsel. It later dismissed his first amended complaint with permission to amend the Fourteenth Amendment claims and denied his second request for appointed counsel.
Saddozai filed a third motion for appointment of counsel. He relied on essentially the same grounds as before: inability to afford a lawyer, the complexity of the issues, limited legal knowledge, limited access to the law library, and the value of counsel if the case reached trial. His second amended complaint was pending the court’s initial review.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that it was still uncertain whether the action would proceed to trial because the second amended complaint had not yet completed initial review. It also determined that Saddozai’s other reasons did not distinguish him from other self-represented prisoner litigants. The court therefore found no extraordinary circumstances warranting appointed counsel.
Disposition
The court denied the third motion for appointment of counsel for lack of extraordinary circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel at a future date if the case’s circumstances warranted it. The order terminated Docket No. 26.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.