Saddozai v. Bolanos

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend and denied his request for appointed counsel. After screening the amended complaint, the court found that it stated claims under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Lomu and Copeland, officers at the Maguire Correctional Facility in San Mateo County. The court then ordered the defendants to file a motion addressing the case or a related notice within 91 days.

Saddozai filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its refusal to appoint counsel. He argued that threats, harassment, and discrimination by the prison law librarian and inmate clerks prevented him from using the prison law library and accessing the courts. He also raised allegations about retaliation, false disciplinary charges, and denial of medical care, and said he needed legal assistance to pursue those matters. The opinion states that he filed two earlier requests for appointed counsel, both of which the court denied.

Counsel request

The court explained that a person generally has no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case unless losing the case could result in loss of physical liberty. It also explained that appointing counsel for an indigent litigant under § 1915 is discretionary and requires exceptional circumstances.

The court found that this case involved inadequate medical care rather than possible loss of physical liberty. It further found that Saddozai’s new allegations involved people who were not parties to this action and therefore fell outside its scope. The court also found that Saddozai had not explained how his circumstances specifically prevented him from pursuing this case, rather than presenting difficulties common to other self-represented prisoners.

The court denied the motion to reconsider appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. The opinion expressly states that this denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own initiative at a later date if the circumstances warrant it.

Deadline extension

The court treated defendants’ counsel’s letter as a motion for an extension of time and granted it for good cause. It extended the deadline for defendants’ motion addressing the case from October 10, 2019, to January 2, 2020—an 84-day extension. The court stated that briefing would then follow the schedule in its earlier service order.

Disposition

The order terminated Docket Nos. 34 and 36. It denied reconsideration of appointed counsel and granted the request to extend the deadline for defendants’ dispositive motion. It did not decide the underlying medical-care claims.