Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00845-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON EPIGMENIO RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID BERNHARDT,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-CV-0845-MCE-DMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 

court are plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 11).

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). In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional 

circumstances.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00845-DMC Document 14 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for the 

appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 11) are denied.

Dated: January 21, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00845-DMC Document 14 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2