Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02620/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02620-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Denying Motions for Appointment

of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620amendatty 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMAND A. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

OFFICER LEDWITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2620 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT;

DENYING MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

(Docket Nos. 18, 25, 26)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court initially dismissed the complaint and granted Plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Thereafter, the Court granted

Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed

an amended complaint on July 3, 2006. Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of

counsel. On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint and a second amended complaint. The Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion

to file a second amended complaint (docket no. 25) and DENY Plaintiff’s motions for

appointment of counsel (docket nos. 18, 26) without prejudice. 

**E-filed 3/1/07**

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 27 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading and “[n]either the filing nor granting of

such a motion before answer terminates the right to amend . . . .” United States ex rel. Saaf v.

Lehman Brothers, 123 F.3d 1307, 1308 (9th Cir. 1997).

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Denying Motions for Appointment

of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620amendatty 2

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and a

second amended complaint. A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of

course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).1

Where plaintiff seeks to amend after a responsive pleading has already been served,

however, the decision whether to grant leave to amend is committed to the sound

discretion of the trial court. Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments

and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging

Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994); cf. id. (attempt to amend complaint

requiring amendment of scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 must be based upon

good cause). 

An amended complaint filed as a matter of course or after leave of court

supersedes the original complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the

original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers

& Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended

complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

Cir.1992). These rules govern actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants

represented by counsel. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (original

complaint that was not incorporated into pro se litigants’ unsolicited amended complaint

was properly ignored).

Here, Plaintiff requests leave of Court to file a second amended complaint. The

Court has yet to review the merits of the second amended complaint and Defendants have

not been served. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 27 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Denying Motions for Appointment

of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620amendatty 3

a second amended complaint (docket no. 25). The second amended complaint, filed on

January 29, 2007, is the operative complaint in this matter. 

B. Motions for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff contends that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he is unable to afford counsel and the issues

involved are complex. Plaintiff maintains that his ability to litigate the case is limited due

to his incarceration, he has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the

law. 

However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v.

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district

court only the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make

“coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 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). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). 

As the Court has not reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 27 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Denying Motions for Appointment

of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620amendatty 4

to determine whether the claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court

concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 18, 26) are DENIED without

prejudice. Plaintiff may request counsel at a later stage of the proceedings, if appropriate. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (docket no. 25) is 

GRANTED. The second amended complaint, filed on January 29, 2007, is the operative

complaint in this matter. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 18,

26) are DENIED without prejudice. The Court will review Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint in a separate written order. 

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change

of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do

so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

3/1/07

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 27 Filed 03/01/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Denying Motions for Appointment

of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620amendatty 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Armand A. Jackson

T-64343

CTF - North

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960-0705

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 27 Filed 03/01/07 Page 5 of 5