Saddozai v. Bolanos
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-03972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Saddozai v. Bolanos, Judge Freeman denied Saddozai’s second request for appointed counsel, while leaving open a future court appointment.
Shikeb Saddozai’s second motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted it.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Bolanos, Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil-rights case. This was his second request.
Saddozai said he could not afford a lawyer, that the issues were complex, that he had limited law-library access and limited legal knowledge, and that a lawyer would help if the case reached trial. The court said these reasons did not show extraordinary circumstances and that it was still uncertain whether the case would proceed to trial.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion 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 docketed as No. 24.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Bolanos · No. 5:18-cv-03972
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 17, 2019
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint with permission to amend and denied Saddozai’s first request for appointed counsel. The court later dismissed the first amended complaint with permission to amend to correct improper joining of claims and parties.
Saddozai filed a second motion for appointment of counsel. He relied essentially on the same reasons as before: he could not afford counsel, the issues were complex, he had limited access to the law library, he had limited legal knowledge, and counsel would be valuable if the case went to trial.
Ruling
The court denied the second motion for lack of extraordinary circumstances. It explained that it was still uncertain whether the action would proceed to trial and that Saddozai’s other reasons did not distinguish him from other self-represented prisoner-plaintiffs. The court stated that the denial was without prejudice to the court’s appointing counsel on its own initiative at a future date if the circumstances warranted it. The order terminated Docket No. 24.
Effect of the Order
The order did not decide the merits of Saddozai’s civil-rights claims. It denied his second request for appointed counsel while leaving open the possibility of a later court appointment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.