Roscoe Farrish Jr.,plaintiff-appellant, v. Multiquip Inc., Defendant-appellee, 103 F.3d 138 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Roscoe Farrish Jr. appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action against Multiquip Inc. alleging discrimination on the basis of age and race. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Farrish contends that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting his request for appointment of counsel. This contention has merit.

Here, we are unable to determine from this record whether the district court ruled on Farrish's request for appointment of counsel. It is well-established that the district court must first rule upon such a request before granting a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Miles v. Department of the Army, 881 F.2d 777, 784 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, even if the district court ruled on Farrish's request, we cannot determine on this record whether the district court exercised a reasoned and well-informed discretion. See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1319 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment, and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should consider the three factors set forth in Bradshaw in determining whether to appoint counsel. See id.

VACATED AND REMANDED.