Under what circumstances does a federal court exclude parents from receiving court-appointed legal counsel for their children in pro se litigation when they have made good faith efforts to obtain representation?

Brought before the Court is the issues of whether the United States District Court, District of Nevada (hereinafter USDC) by way of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Courts ’ (hereinafter “Ninth Circuit or USCA ”) ruling, unlawfully denied Petitioner Parties of his/their equal access to Justice, for which the USDC argues that “in the Ninth Circuit, “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer ”? Whereas the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted rules of law and it causes errs of law in the Courts ’ own judgment concerning 28 U.S. Code § 1654 , which the Ninth Circuit contradicts the United States Supreme Court Opinions & Dissents 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884), and including the Constitution of the State of Nevada by denying Petitioners who previously invoked the Fifth Amendment right , Rule 17 (c), his/their common law rights, and his/their equal access rights to Federal Courts ’ proceedings, under what circumstances does the Court "excludes" Petitioner (Parents) from receiving the Courts ’ appointment of legal counsel for Petitioners ’ children who are without legal representation for their defense when Petitioners are involuntarily involved in/with Federal Court cases? The choice to appear pro se’ in federal court was not a true choice for minors and nor their Parents. In fact, the USCA knew and understood that litigants in federal court have the right to function as his or her own counsel and that the i Judiciary Act 28 U.S.C. § 1654 says nothing about children 1 (emphasis added). The Petitioners had no control over his/case being moved federal court, which is no fault of the Petitioners. Whereas the joint removals gave the opposing Respondents Parties an unfair advantage over the minor litigants in this case due to the fact that Parents do not have the right to act on their minors ’ behalf in Federal Courts. Whereas the Court imposed the “Mandatory Legal Counsel Mandate ”, ignores its implications for protected Parental authority. The sole policy at stake concerns the Petitioners. In brief, “Mandatory Legal Counsel Mandate ”, violates children ’s rights under multiple provisions of the Constitution and federal statutes, due to its’ exclusion of needy children from federal courts, and that it discourages parents from filing meritorious claims on behalf of their minors. (See Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll, of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882 (3d Cir. 1991); see Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990). The court Ordered/imposed “Mandatory Legal Counsel Mandate ” directive restricted pro se’ by an impossible paradox that adds financial burdens to the unrepresented parties with a case of this magnitude, and the adverse Outcomes have/has caused a depletion in Petitioners ’ family ’s resources. Due to pro se’ Petitioner Abdul-Alim being the sole provider for his family of 4 (four) household income. And, regardless of the financial burden that is being imposed on the Petitioner Parties by the Courts, Petitioners have made reasonable “Good Faith ” 1 See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223 (1982) (striking down a ban on free public education for undocumented students and noting that the law “impose[d] a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status ” ii efforts to obtain legal counsel for their minors to advance his/her claims by contacting the Nevada State bar for referrals, and by diligently researching other Courts ’ cases. In addition to the above, Petitioners have made extensions requests with the Courts ’ to comply with its’ imposed mandatory Order(s). For over the course of 6 (six) consecutive years, Petitioners sought after legal counsel for his/representation, and to no avail was Petitioners ’ able obtain legal counsel. For which is/was no fault of the Petitioners own. In fact, Petitioner have exhausted his/her local referral remedies offered by the Nevada State bar. But Petitioners h