Muniz
(PC) Cisneros v. Muniz
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL CISNEROS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01601-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v. (Doc. No. 7) JUAN MUNIZ, RAVIJOT GILL,
MARIANA LOTERSZTAIN, MARIE
RUSSELL, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION, Defendants. 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his First Amended Complaint filed January 12, 02023. (Doc. No. 6). The Court granted Plaintiff application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis on January 23, 2023. (Doc. No. 8). 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). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to…