(PS) Robinson v. Butte County, California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ROBINSON, No. 2:21-CV-1780-TLN-DMC

Plaintiff, v. ORDER

BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

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.

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).

Plaintiff contends appointment of counsel is warranted because “[a]ttorneys have hijacked the United States Courts so that only attorneys can prevail.” ECF No. 3. Plaintiff also states that he cannot afford counsel. See id. Finally, Plaintiff asserts “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium,” which he states is the “absolute right to a remedy. . . .” 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 in Robinson IJ, demonstrate Plaintiff has the ability to more than competently represent himself.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is denied.

Dated: October 13, 2021 Ssvcqo_

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE