Saddozai v. Bolanos

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 18-03972 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING SECOND v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 COUNSEL 14 CARLOS BOLANOS, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docket No. 24) 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 5, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (Docket No. 10.) In the same order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Id.; Docket No. 3.) Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel for essentially the same reasons stated in his first motion, i.e., he is unable to afford counsel, the issues are complex, limited access to the law library, limited knowledge of the law, and counsel’s assistance would be invaluable should the matter go to trial. (Docket No. 24.)

26 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend to correct the improper joinder of claims and parties. (Docket No. 19.) Plaintiff has filed a || 1s yet uncertain whether this action will actually proceed to trial, and the other reasons set || forth do not distinguish Plaintiff from other pro se prisoner-plaintiffs. Accordingly, the |} motion is DENIED for lack of extraordinary circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 || F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte || appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such || appointment.

9 This order terminates Docket No. 24.

10 || ITISSO ORDERED.

11 Dated: _October 17, 2019_ [ bof ( boy home) BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 4/4

Z 18 Order Denying 2nd Mot. for Appt. of Counsel PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\03972Saddozai_deny-atty2