Saddozai v. Carwithen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-01352
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Saddozai v. Carwithen, Judge Freeman denied appointed counsel and granted a final 28-day extension to oppose the fee-status motion.
Shikeb Saddozai’s request for appointed counsel was denied, but he received a final 28-day extension to oppose the motion to revoke his permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
What happened
Saddozai v. Carwithen is a civil-rights case brought by a state prisoner representing himself. The court had allowed only an Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen to continue and had dismissed the other claims and defendants. The pending issue was the defendant’s request to revoke Saddozai’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Saddozai asked for a lawyer and described problems with prison law-library staff. The court said those staff members were not parties to this case and that the allegations did not explain why he could not file his opposition. Because he had filed the motion himself, the court found no exceptional circumstances supporting appointed counsel and denied that request.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted one final extension of 28 days to file an opposition and supporting documents. If Saddozai does not file a new opposition, the court will proceed using his original opposition and papers; the defendant’s reply will then be due within the period stated in the order.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Carwithen · No. 5:21-cv-01352
- Beth Freeman
- May 18, 2022
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After dismissing the original complaint with permission to amend, the court found that the amended complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen for deprivation of sleep. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants.
A. Carwithen had filed a motion to revoke Saddozai’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Saddozai filed an affidavit supporting a motion for appointment of counsel. He alleged that law-library staff interfered with his access to legal resources and negatively affected his litigation activities. The court noted that the law-library staff were not parties to the action and that the allegations involved claims unrelated to the remaining Eighth Amendment claim. The court therefore would not entertain Saddozai’s attempt to add those defendants and claims to this case.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that a civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel unless losing the case could result in loss of physical liberty. Appointment under § 1915 is discretionary and is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that Saddozai had not explained how the alleged law-library interference prevented him from opposing the motion to revoke his fee status. His ability to file the motion also showed that he remained able to litigate the matter actively. The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances.
Extension of Time and Disposition
The court granted Saddozai one final extension of time to file an opposition and supporting documents. The new opposition was due within 28 days after the order was filed. If he failed to file it, the matter would proceed on the original opposition and papers filed on March 14, 2022. The defendant’s reply was due within 14 days after the new opposition was filed or was due, whichever was later. The order terminated Docket No. 42. It did not decide the merits of the remaining Eighth Amendment claim or the motion to revoke Saddozai’s permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.