ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APRIL 19, 2019 COMBINED MOTIONS (DE 30)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff's amended complaint describes a Jane Doe Defendant. (DE 2.) On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff informed the Court that Tammra S. Rothhaar is the previously unidentified Defendant. (DE 27.) Accordingly, on April 18, 2019, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court substitute Tammra Rothhaar for Jane Doe and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to attempt service of the amended complaint upon Rothhaar at Gus Harrison Correctional Facility. (DE 29.) Rothhaar is now listed as a Defendant on the docket, and efforts to effect service upon Rothhaar are underway. (DE 32.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff's April 19, 2019 motion (DE 30) is DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks amendment of his pleading to identify Defendant Jane Doe as Defendant Rothhaar. In addition, Plaintiff's motion requests, without further development, that the Court "appoint counsel as he is doing his litigation pro per, and requires the assistance of a[n] attorney who is skilled in [the] law[.]" (DE 30 at 2.) Presumably, Plaintiff makes such a request under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) ("The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel."). Many people who otherwise lack a legal education or other specialized knowledge of the law file cases in this Court in pro per, but that does not, in and of itself, entitle them to the recruitment of pro bono counsel.1 This request is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may petition the Court for the recruitment of pro bono counsel if this case survives dispositive motion practice, proceeds to trial, or if other circumstances demonstrate such a need in the future.

IT IS SO ORDERED.