(PS) Robinson v. Butte County, California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH ROBINSON, No. 2:21-CV-1780-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 3, for the appointment of counsel. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 20 require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil actions. See e.g. Mallard v. United States 21 Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may 22 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 23 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 24 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Plaintiff contends appointment of counsel is warranted because “[a]ttorneys have 26 hijacked the United States Courts so that only attorneys can prevail.” ECF No. 3. Plaintiff also 27 states that he cannot afford counsel. See id. Finally, Plaintiff asserts “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium,” 28 which he states is the “absolute right to a remedy. . . .” Id. In the present case, and considering 1 Plaintiff's argument, the Court does not find Plaintiff has established exceptional circumstances. 2 The Court does find that Plaintiff's complaint in this case and his filings in Robinson IJ, 3 demonstrate Plaintiff has the ability to more than competently represent himself. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the 5 appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is denied. 6 7 || Dated: October 13, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 8 DENNIS M. COTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28