1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ROOSEVELT HOGG, Case No. 23-cv-06021-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 5 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF v. 6 COUNSEL;

7 R. QUINTEROS, et al., ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendants. 8 Dkt. Nos. 18, 21, 22, and 23

9

10 Plaintiff Hogg moves for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 21.) The decision 11 to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under

is within “the 12 sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 13 Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional 14 circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 15 merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 16 the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 17 America,

(9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact 18 that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily 19 qualify the issues involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland,

(9th 20 Cir. 1997). 21 There is no doubt that not having a lawyer puts a party at a disadvantage in our 22 adversarial system of justice. Across the United States in 2020, unrepresented prisoners 23 filed almost 8000 cases, roughly 16.65% of all new civil filings. United States Courts for 24 the Ninth Circuit, 2020 Annual Report, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ 25 judicialcouncil/publications/AnnualReport2020.pdf. The high percentage of civil litigants 26 who cannot afford counsel threatens our ability to dispense equal justice to rich and poor 27 1 |} precedent and determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist to appoint counsel in the 2 || cases before me. 3 Hogg has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist. His filings are clear, and 4 || the suit does not present complex legal issues. Accordingly, Hogg’s motion for the 5 || appointment of counsel is DENIED. I will reconsider the necessity of appointing counsel 6 || if circumstances warrant such action at a later date. 7 I construe Hogg’s petitions for retaliation and to show cause as a request for leave 8 || to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 22 and 23.) So construed, the motion is 9 || GRANTED. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended 10 || complaint on or before September 9, 2024. The amended complaint must include the 11 caption and civil case number used in this order (23-06021 WHO (PR)) and the words 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended 5 13 || complaint must also appear on this Court’s form, a copy of which will be sent to him. S 14 || Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff 15 || must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of a 16 the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir.

17 || 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to 18 || file a proper amended complaint by September 2, 2024 may result in dismissal of this 19 || action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 20 Because it is unclear what claims and defendants will proceed, Hogg’s motion for a 21 || subpoena is DENIED as premature. (Dkt. No. 18.) Hogg can make discovery requests to 22 || defendants after his amended complaint has been screened and served. 23 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: August 5, 2024 KM.Q2 *6 H. ORRIC 27 United States District Judge 28