Moody v. Simms, 15-cv-04198-JSC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160616a75
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against San Francisco County Sheriff's deputies for violating his rights while he was incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail. 1 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a second ame
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against San Francisco County Sheriff's deputies for violating his rights while he was incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail. 1 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a second amen..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26.
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Francisco County Sheriff's deputies for violating his rights while he was incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail.1 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The motion is DENIED because Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed second amended complaint, and he has not explained the need to further amend his complaint.
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Section 1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, not the power to "appoint" counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues, at least at this stage, are not complex. If the circumstances of this case materially change, this decision will be reconsidered sua sponte.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 1, 24.)
Source: Leagle
