1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ERIC ZARAGOZA RIOS, Case No. 21-09465 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE COMPLAINT 13 v. AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 14 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF’S DEPT., COUNSEL 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a three-page handwritten document in the 19 Eastern District of California which was construed as an attempt to file a civil rights 20 complaint under

in pro se, against the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s 21 Department. Dkt. No. 1. On December 7, 2021, the Eastern District transferred the matter 22 to this Court as the proper venue. Dkt. No. 4. On the same date, the Clerk of this Court 23 sent Plaintiff two separate notices, instructing him that within twenty-eight days he must: 24 (1) file a complaint on the court form, and (2) either pay the full filing fee or file an 25 application to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in order to proceed with this action or 26 face dismissal. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter stating that 27 he wished to make partial payments, that he needed more time to obtain counsel, and 1 reassigned to the Undersigned on February 1, 2022. Dkt. Nos. 12, 13. 2 Plaintiff is advised that to qualify to make partial payments of the filing fee, he must 3 file a complete IFP application to establish his inability to pay the entire fee upfront. 4 Plaintiff is also advised that he must file a proper complaint on the court form in order for 5 this matter to proceed. In the interest of justice, the Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a 6 request for an extension of time to file these documents and GRANTS the request. 7 Plaintiff shall file a complaint and IFP application no later than twenty-eight (28) days 8 from the filing date of this order. 9 With regard to Plaintiff’s request for counsel, there is no constitutional right to 10 counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses 11 the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services,

(1981); Rand v. 12 Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 13 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc,

(9th Cir. 14 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 15 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 16 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has set 17 forth no grounds to indicate exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. 18 Accordingly, the request is DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman 19 v. Corrections Corp. of America,

(9th Cir. 2004); Rand,

1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. 21 Escalderon,

(9th Cir. 1986). 22 Failure to file a complaint and an IFP application in the time provided shall 23 result in this action being dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to 24 Plaintiff. 25 /// 26 /// 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: _ February 3, 2022 __ Aa Lope jrcenuan/ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 3 United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 o

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order Granting EOT to file complaint & IFP P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\09465Rios_eot-ifp&comp.docx 26 27