Case Name: Mariyam AKMAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERSTANCE INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-03
Citations: 503 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 11-35769
Parties: Mariyam AKMAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERSTANCE INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Mariyam AKMAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERSTANCE INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35769.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
Mariyam Akmal, Kent, WA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
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. 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.