Dist.Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff-prisoner's multiple request for appointment of counsel in plaintiff's section 1983 action, alleging that his filthy cell conditions and constant hallway lighting violated his 8th Amendment rights. Dist. Ct. properly applied standards set forth in Pruitt, 503 F.3d 647, when denying plaintiff's request for counsel, by noting that plaintiff had prior experience with litigation process and had demonstrated through his pleadings in instant case, which included filing successful amended complaint and prevailing on defendant's motion for summary judgment, that he understood his burden of proof and was fully capable of assembling evidence and marshalling arguments to support his claim. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate reasonable likelihood that presence of counsel would have made difference in unsuccessful outcome of jury trial, where there was little evidence supporting his allegations of deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement.
