Khan v. Payton

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an officer at San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously dismissed claims it found not legally cognizable and ordered service of the claims that could proceed. The court also extended the deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion to September 12, 2023.

Motion for appointed counsel

Khan asked the court to appoint counsel, citing indigency, limited ability to conduct legal research, limited access to resources, the exhaustion of his remedies, and the alleged cognizability of his claims. He also argued that counsel would generally benefit the prosecution of the case.

The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case unless the litigant could lose physical liberty. Appointment of counsel for an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is instead committed to the trial court’s discretion and is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that Khan’s stated grounds were not exceptional among prisoner plaintiffs and denied the motion for appointment of counsel.

Request for an order requiring a reply

Khan separately asked the court to order the defendant to reply to the complaint. The court stated that defendants had properly waived their right to file a reply under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). The court therefore denied that request.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that both motions—Docket Nos. 60 and 64—be terminated. The opinion does not state that either motion was denied with or without prejudice.