Nguyen
(PC) Haro v. Nguyen
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 JOHNNY JOE HARO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00448-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
T. NGUYEN, et al., (ECF No. 40)
Defendants.
17 Johnny Haro (“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 January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed his scheduling and discovery statement, which includes a request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel to assist him with this matter, including in deposing Defendants. 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have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).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…