Jones

(PC) Mills v. Jones

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 6, 20211:21-cv-01193California795 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

v. (Doc. No. 10) I.Z. JONES, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Thomas K. Mills is a current state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel filed September 30, 2021. (Doc. No. 10). The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). This Court has discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.