Saddozai v. Davis

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees at San Quentin State Prison. The third amended complaint was the operative complaint. After the case was reopened on remand, one claim remained: a claim against Defendant Clawson alleging failure to protect Saddozai during an assault by several inmates, during which Clawson shot Saddozai with a block gun.

Saddozai moved for appointment of counsel and a guardian ad litem. He relied on indigency, the complexity of the issues, limited legal knowledge and access to legal resources, mental-health concerns, physical disabilities affecting his dominant hand and arm, and the need for assistance with expert testimony, depositions, cross-examination, and discovery.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that an indigent person generally has no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may request counsel for an indigent litigant in “exceptional circumstances,” meaning circumstances showing both a likely difficulty presenting the case and a need for legal assistance beyond the litigant’s ability to manage the case.

The court found that Saddozai’s asserted grounds did not establish exceptional circumstances. It also stated that the remaining failure-to-protect claim was not complex and clarified that the case did not involve deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as Saddozai had asserted in his supporting memorandum. The court therefore denied the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

Guardian Ad Litem

A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect the interests of a minor or an incompetent person in litigation. The court discussed the rule requiring an inquiry when there is a substantial question about a self-represented litigant’s competence. It compared cases involving letters from mental-health professionals or other verifiable evidence with cases involving only a litigant’s own assertion that a competency hearing was needed.

The court found that Saddozai’s records from 2019 and 2020 did not show that he was currently unable to litigate. The court also noted that he had articulated his claims and filed numerous motions. Because he provided no letter from a mental-health professional or other verifiable evidence of incompetence, the court found no substantial question about his competence and no duty to conduct an inquiry. The court consequently declined to appoint a guardian ad litem.

Disposition

The court denied Saddozai’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. Its conclusion also states that the request for appointment of counsel was denied and that the order terminated Docket No. 68. The opinion does not separately state a formal disposition label for the guardian-ad-litem request, but it expressly found that Saddozai did not warrant such an appointment.