(PS) Robinson v. Butte County

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH ROBINSON, No. 2:21-CV-1845-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 3, for the appointment of counsel, which Plaintiff has set for hearing before the undersigned in Redding, California, on November 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

20 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).

26 / / / / / / / / / 1 Plaintiff contends appointment of counsel is warranted because he cannot afford | counsel and is untrained in the law. See ECF No. 3. Plaintiff also asserts “Ubi Jus Ibi | Remedium.” Id. In the present case, and considering Plaintiff's argument, the Court does not | find Plaintiff has established exceptional circumstances. The Court does find that Plaintiff's | complaint in this case and his filings prior actions demonstrate Plaintiff has the ability to || competently represent himself.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The hearing set for November 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned in Redding, California, is vacated; and 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is 11 denied.

13 | Dated: October 13, 2021 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE