CDCR

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRISTIAN LOPEZ, No. 1:24-cv-00729-SAB (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

10 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING

TWENTY DAYS TO FILE A MOTION TO

11 CDCR, et al., SUBSTITUTE THE DOE DEFENDANT OR

RESPONSE AS TO STATUS OF SUBPOENA

12 Defendants. (ECF No. 26) 13 14 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, filed July 7, 17 2025. Plaintiff argues that he requires appointed counsel to assist with gaining the identity of 18 Defendant John Doe. 19 Plaintiff is advised that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 20 civil action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require 21 an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct.…