Mariyam Akmal v. Centerstance Inc. , 503 F. App'x 538 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIYAM AKMAL, No. 11-35769
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05378-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CENTERSTANCE INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Akmal’s request for
counsel is not immediately appealable. See Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049
(9th Cir. 1985); see also Wilborn 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
pre-trial discovery deadlines. See Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909 (9th
Cir. 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.
2 11-35769