(PC) Ramirez v. Doe et al

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01379-KES-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 9)
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.
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.
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.)
Case 1:25-cv-01379-KES-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 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
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed with this action, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01379-KES-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2