Saddozai v. Atchley

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff and officials at Salinas Valley State Prison and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The court had dismissed his second amended complaint with permission to file another amended complaint. The court addressed Saddozai’s latest motion seeking appointed counsel or a guardian ad litem, a person appointed to protect the interests of a minor or incompetent person in litigation.

Appointment of Counsel

Saddozai argued that appointed counsel was warranted because the issues were complex, he lacked legal knowledge and access to the law library and other resources, counsel would help investigate and present his claims, physical disabilities affecting his hand and arm impeded his ability to litigate, and counsel would be needed if the case went to trial.

The court explained that an indigent civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel unless losing the case could result in loss of physical liberty. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, appointment is within the trial court’s discretion and is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that Saddozai’s stated difficulties were challenges generally experienced by prisoners and did not establish exceptional circumstances. It therefore denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice.

Guardian ad Litem

Saddozai also sought a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), relying on his participation in the Mental Health Services Delivery System. The court stated that a hearing may be required when a substantial question exists about a self-represented litigant’s mental competence. It also discussed decisions treating verifiable evidence of incompetence—such as a mental-health professional’s letter or official records—as evidence that can trigger further inquiry.

The court found that Saddozai submitted no evidence of incompetence. The attached documents showed that he had been held in a mental-health crisis bed in late 2019 because of reported suicidal thoughts, but they did not describe more recent mental-health issues. The court also found that he had demonstrated an ability to pursue and explain his claims and had not submitted a letter from a mental-health professional or other verifiable evidence of incompetence. It concluded that there was no substantial question about his competence and no duty to conduct further inquiry under Rule 17(c).

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied without prejudice Saddozai’s motion for appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem. The order terminated Docket No. 29.