(PS) Ramirez v. Haaland ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DON EPIGMENIO RAMIREZ, No. 2:19-CV-0845-MCE-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BERNHARDT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 court are plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 11). 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 (9th 24 Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional 25 circumstances. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for the 2 | appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 11) are denied. 3 4 | Dated: January 21, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 5 DENNIS M. COTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28