Newsom

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERSHEL W. CASTO, Case No. 2:19-cv-02209-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN

13 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

14 NEWSOM, et al., FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE

15 Defendants. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 16 ECF No. 54 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ 18 motion for summary judgment.1 ECF No. 54. Good cause appearing, that motion is granted in 19 part. 20 21 Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a 22 constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 23 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See 24 Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The…