Santoro
(PC) Hardy v. Santoro
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 KRISTIN HARDY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00327-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
R. MORENO, et al., (ECF No. 64)
Defendants.
17 Kristin Hardy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 64). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because Plaintiff cannot afford to conduct depositions and needs assistance in conducting discovery. 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have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).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…