See Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851, 855 (10th Cir.) ("[W]e are persuaded that we should not hold that the right of access to the courts requires more than the assistance of counsel through completion of the complaint for a federal habeas or civil rights action."), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032, 106 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed.2d 573 (1985); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 398 (10th Cir. 1987) (same); Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d 856, 860-61 (10th Cir. 1985) (state mental hospital officials need only supply mental patients under commitment with legal assistance through the completion of a federal habeas corpus petition or civil rights complaint); Knop, 977 F.2d at 1009. Other than habeas corpus or civil rights actions regarding current confinement, a state has no affirmative constitutional obligation to assist inmates in general civil matters.

"`Once an inmate gains access to the court through a properly prepared and filed initial pleading, the court will then be in a position to determine whether the claim has any merit and whether the issues raised are unusually complex.'" Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 617 (10th Cir. 1995) Carper, 54 F.3d at 617 (quoting Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987)). II. Standards for Judgment

Only the Tenth Circuit directly upheld a system that cut off legal assistance after the "initial pleading stage" of a suit. Compare Bee v. Utah State Prison , 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987), with Brooks v. Buscher , 62 F.3d 176, 182 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that system of "indirect access" through photocopies was adequate despite delays in transmitting materials); Knop v. Johnson , 977 F.2d 996, 1006–07 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that order requiring prison legal assistance staffers to "represent" inmates in "a variety of civil matters" was "more intrusive than necessary"); cf. Peterkin , 855 F.2d at 1042 ; Morrow v. Harwell , 768 F.2d 619, 623 (5th Cir. 1985) ("[F]or access to be meaningful, post-filing needs, such as the research tools necessary to effectively rebut authorities cited by an adversary in responsive pleadings, should be met.") (citation omitted); Bonner v. Prichard, Ala. , 661 F.2d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir. 1981) (rejecting argument that right to access courts is limited to preparation of complaints and petitions). We agree.

" Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980); see also Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 357-58 (10th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) ("He claims he has had to file for extensions of time, but certainly this condition is not uncommon to real lawyers."). Similarly, where an inmate's right to access is accommodated through the provision of legal services, see, e.g., Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1987), administrative delays of several days are surely routine. Because Mr. Beville's incarceration in the Teton County Detention facility was so short and he was not prejudiced by the denial of legal resources during his stay, we hold that his right to access to the courts was not violated.

Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851, 855 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032, 106 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed.2d 573 (1985). See also Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 398 (10th Cir. 1987). The Sixth Circuit is in agreement.

The Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel should be denied since there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil proceeding. Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1572 (10th Cir. 1991) (court has discretion to appoint counsel, based upon complexity and merits of case); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987). As Plaintiff's claims are without merit, there is no need to appoint counsel.

Once an inmate is before the court, the court can determine if further legal assistance is needed. Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987); Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032, 106 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed.2d 573 (1985). The scope of the new library need not be greater than the scope of the constitutional concept of access to the courts.

Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel. See Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987) (“[P]risoners are not entitled to legal assistance in addition to a law library.”); see also Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel. See Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987). The court may in its discretion appoint counsel for indigent plaintiffs, however.

See ECF 6. See Carper v. Deland, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397, 399 (10th Cir. 1987). See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(1) (2024); Carper, 54 F.3d at 617; Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991)