Flores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JERRY DILLINGHAM, Case No. 1:20-cv-01164-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (Doc. No. 20) A. FLORES, et al., Defendant. 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff, a former prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his initial Complaint. (Doc. No. 1). The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s May 4, 2023 Screening Order (Doc. No. 16) and the time to do so has expired. Instead, noting he has not been able to secure counsel, Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he claims he is illiterate and mentally disabled. (Doc. No. 20 at 1). 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…