(PS) Ramirez v. County of El Dorado
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM RAMIREZ and STACEY No. 2:18-cv-00632-KJM-CKD PS
RAMIREZ,
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction Before the court is plaintiffs’ October 1, 2019 motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 31.) On October 8, 2019, the court took the motion under submission on the briefing without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 34.) On October 16, 2019, defendants filed an opposition (ECF No. 36), and on October 22, 2019 plaintiffs filed their reply (ECF No. 37). II. Legal Standard Any successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before appointing counsel to plaintiffs, the court must consider (1) plaintiffs’ financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by plaintiffs to secure counsel, and (3) plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1318. …