Arevalos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH, JR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-NONE-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AND

v.

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

E. AREVALOS, et al., COUNSEL Defendant. (Docs. 54, 55) 16 Plaintiff has filed a third motion for judgment on the grounds of evidence tampering. (Doc. 54.) This motion is substantively similar to the two prior motions for judgment, which were denied. (See Doc. 41, 45.) Plaintiff again has not demonstrated that he is entitled to judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 or summary judgment under Rule 56. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for judgment. (Doc. 54.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 55.) 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 an attorney to represent Plaintiff 25 …