Israel Maldonado Ramirez v. Doe, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-01379-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION DOE, et al., FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 9) 17 Plaintiff Israel Maldonado Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 On December 3, 2024, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that recommended this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action. (ECF No. 7.) The findings and recommendations are currently pending before the assigned District Judge. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened.

24 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed with this lawsuit, filed December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he had a motion to proceed with this lawsuit that was denied for no reason. He wants the lawsuit to go through. Plaintiff also states that he has been writing to the Court about getting a lawyer without a response. He asks if he can have a lawyer to help him. (Id.) 1 Plaintiff is reminded that the filing fee has not been paid and that he has not submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff is also reminded that there are pending findings and recommendations to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

5 Plaintiff’s current motion for this action to proceed will be denied. This action cannot proceed without Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee or submission of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has provided no indication that he intends to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, as required to proceed with the instant action.

9 Further, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied. The Court is not aware of any authority that would allow the appointment of counsel for a litigant in a civil action who is not proceeding in forma pauperis. Even if Plaintiff were proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed with this action, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED.

21 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: January 5, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE