Rouse
Rouse v. Pitkin
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 XEZAKIA ROUSE, Case No. 21-cv-05493-AGT
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
v. PENDING MOTIONS AND
CONTINUING INITIAL CASE
GARY PITKIN, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 8, 12, 19, 20, 21,
12 1. Pro se plaintiff Xezakia Rouse requests to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a district court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, or without prepayment of fees, if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he is unable to pay such fees. The Court has reviewed Rouse’s application and finds that he is unable to pay the filing fee in this action. His request to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore granted. 2. Rouse also requests that the Court appoint him counsel. Dkts. 19, 22. Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil proceedings. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). However, a court may…