Mariyam Akmal v. Centerstance Inc.

MEMORANDUM ** Mariyam Akmal appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court construed Akmal’s request for counsel under both Title VII’s appointment provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), and the provision generally applicable to indigent civil litigants, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). However, because Akmal has consistently and expressly stated that her claims are brought under § 1981, and not Title VII, only § 1915(e) is properly at issue. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction because the district court’s denial of Ak-mal’s request for counsel is not immediately appealable. See Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.1985); see also Wilbom v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1986) (recognizing that while orders denying appointment of counsel under Title VII may be immediately appealed, denials of counsel under § 1915 may not). We similarly lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order regarding pretrial discovery deadlines. See Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. *539 2007) (“Discovery orders, such as an order not to extend the time for discovery, are interlocutory and thus not usually subject to immediate appeal.”). DISMISSED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.