Valdez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICARDO VALDEZ, Case No.: 20-CV-736-JLS(WVG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

DR. ZHANG,

Defendant. [Doc. No. 25.] 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks reconsideration of the Order denying his request for appointment of an attorney or, in the alternative, an interpreter. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. I. APPLICABLE LAW “There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other grounds). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to U.S.C.…