(PC) Clayborne v. Palmdale Hosp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM CLAYBORNE, No. 2:23-cv-00580-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER PALMDALE HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. 16 Mr. Clayborne has not properly initiated an action in this court; the complaint he filed on March 28, 2023, was unsigned. See ECF No. 1. He also has not filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the required filing fee. Accordingly, on April 24, I directed Mr. Clayborne to submit a signed complaint and either the required filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. To date, Mr. Clayborne has not complied with that order. Instead, he moves for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. Mr. Clayborne does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent him. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist.…