(PS) Ramirez v. Haaland

Opinion

DON EPIGMENIO RAMIREZ, No. 2:19-CV-0845-MCE-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 11). The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil actions. See e.g. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. / / / / / / / / / Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 11) are denied. Dated: January 21, 2020 Ssvcqo_ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE