1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN CHRISTOPHER HEADEN, Case No. 22-cv-01146-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 10 JOSEPH C. SCOTT, et al., APPOINT COUNSEL 11 Defendants. Docket No. 15

12 13 14 The Court received Plaintiff’s Complaint in the instant civil rights action on February 24, 15 2022. See Docket No. 1 (“Complaint”). That same day, Magistrate Judge Illman received a 16 similar complaint from Plaintiff. See Docket No. 1, Headen v. San Mateo County, Case No. 22- 17 cv-1145-RMI. After the case before Judge Illman was dismissed, Plaintiff stated that he wished to 18 consolidate the two actions. See Docket No. 22, Headen v. San Mateo County, Case No. 22-cv- 19 1145-RMI (summarizing Plaintiff’s communications). The Court granted Plaintiff time to amend 20 the Complaint filed in this action to state all of his claims. See Docket No. 12. Two months later, 21 plaintiff filed four hundred pages of addenda to his Complaint. See Docket Nos. 13, 14. 22 Plaintiff now seeks an extension of time in which to amend his Complaint. See Docket 23 No. 15. He also asks the Court to appoint counsel. See id. 24 Plaintiff’s motion to be appointed counsel is DENIED. A district court has the discretion 25 under

(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in 26 exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon,

(9th Cir. 1986). This 27 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff 1 Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a 2 request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances are not present because 3 the issues in this action are not complex. Nor does Plaintiff seem likely to succeed on the merits; 4 indeed, the claims presented to the Court thus far appear to be Heck- or Younger-barred. See 5 generally, Compl. Additionally, the filings that Plaintiff has submitted show that he is able 6 adequately to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel to 7 represent him in this action therefore is denied. 8 Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. 9 Plaintiff must file an amended complaint no later than December 2, 2022, and must include this 10 order’s caption and civil case number and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 11 Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his 12 claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty.,

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[F]or any 13 claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) Thus, if 14 Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must include both the claims he initially presented in this 15 action, and the claims he wishes to pursue against San Mateo County. Plaintiff also must keep in 16 mind the requirement that he file a “short and plain statement of [his] claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 17 Although Plaintiff may submit evidence to support his “short and plain” statement, the Court will 18 not treat four hundred pages of addenda as an amended complaint. 19 If Plaintiff does not file a “short and plain” amended complaint by the deadline, the Court 20 will conclude that he has waived the claims initially filed in the case against San Mateo County 21 and the instant action will move forward only as to the claims initially filed in this action. 22 This order disposes of Docket No. 15. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: September 22, 2022 26 27 ______________________________________