Calderon
(PC) Tejada v. Calderon
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 RANDY TEJADA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01112-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
S. CALDERON, (ECF No. 28)
Defendant.
17 Plaintiff Randy Tejada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he does not know the law well enough to proceed. (Id.). Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).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…