CDCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JUSTIN ROMELL BREDFORD, No. 1:24-cv-01056-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE CDCR, et al., (ECF No. 27)

Defendants.

13 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed March 19, 2025. Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he does not know how to conduct discovery and has no knowledge of the law. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in…