DECISION AND ORDER
JEREMIAH J. McCARTHY, Magistrate Judge.
Before me is the motion of plaintiff Houston Douglas for appointment of counsel .
Plaintiff, an inmate, alleges that while incarcerated at Five Points and Livingston Correctional Facilitates, defendants were deliberatively indifferent to his eye condition, which further impaired his vision. Complaint . The case remains at an early stage. While I have been attempting to have the remaining defendant, Dr. Guardia, properly identified and served with the Complaint, the case has otherwise been stayed as a result of plaintiff's December 27, 2016 unopposed motion to hold the case in abeyance because of an impending cataract surgery , which I granted. See January 6, 2017 Text Order .
Because of his "vision impairment", plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel "to execute discovery of [his medical records [and] to locate documents requested by the court [to identify Dr. Guardia]". Plaintiff's motion , p. 1 of 3.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. However, under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants. See, e.g.,
While I am sympathetic to plaintiff's circumstances, having considered the above factors I conclude that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Since the case is still at an early stage, the merit (or lack thereof) of plaintiff's claims remains difficult to assess. Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that his case is complex.
Although plaintiff contends that his visual impairment requires appointment of counsel, I previously granted his unopposed motion to hold the case in abeyance  as a result of his impending cataract surgery, and, if necessary, will consider an application to continue the stay of proceedings to permit him to recover from that surgery. However, in the absence of any supporting medical evidence, plaintiff has not demonstrated that his vision presents a permanent hindrance to him prosecuting his case. See
Therefore, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice to his ability to re-apply for appointment of counsel. However, at this time, it remains plaintiff's responsibility to retain an attorney or to prosecute this action pro se. In order to assist plaintiff in pursuing this case pro se, the clerk of the court is directed to send plaintiff the court's booklet entitled "Pro Se Litigation Guidelines".
For these reasons, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel  is denied, without prejudice to renewal.