(PC) Mills v. Jones

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 40) J. RIVERA and Z. JONES, 15 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Thomas K. Mills is a current state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis on his first amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 7). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion seeking appointment of counsel filed December 6, 2021. (Doc.

21 No. 40).

22 The Court previously denied Plaintiff appointment of counsel in its Order dated October 6, 2021. (Doc. No. 14). In his instant motion, Plaintiff states he is entitled to appointment of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and/or has a right under the First Amendment to speak to counsel. (Doc. No. 40 at 1). As the Court previously advised Plaintiff, the United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 27 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases) (emphasis added). This Court considered each of the | factors to determine if exceptional circumstances warranted appointment of counsel in this civil | matter and determined counsel was not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. (See generally | Doc. No. 14). Thus, for the reasons previously set forth in the Court’s October 6, 2021 Order, the | Court’s denies Plaintiff's second motion.

5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 Plaintiff's second motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED without prejudice.

8 Dated: _ December 15, 2021 ooo. Th. Bareh Hack 9 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE