UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JUVENCIA DARSHA TOWNSEND, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. COLORADO DEPA RTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; EVERINGHAM, Case Manager; ROACH, Case Manager; DURAN, Case Manager; JOHN C. ROBERTS, Corrections Officer; SGT. TONYA GAMBLIN, Housing; SGT. TODD CHRIST; Major MARK ALHOLTZ, Housing; LT. TRAXLER, Head Case Manager; JACKSON, Case Manager; DAVID JO HNSON, Warden; DEETS, Case Manager,, Defendants - Appellees. No. 16-1141 (D.C. No. 1:14-CV -02961-RBJ-KMT) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 16, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Juvencia Townsend, a state prisoner pr oceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Townsend is a prisoner in the custody of the Co lorado Department of Corrections. She alleges clai ms of discrimination, harass ment, retaliation, and due process violations against various correcti ons department employees. The district court denied Townsend’s request for a ppointment of counsel and subsequently dismissed each of her clai ms. It concluded that Townsend failed to exhaust administrative remedies, di d not state a claim for disc rimination, and that her retaliation claim was time-barred . Townsend timely appealed. On appeal, Townsend presents only thr ee narrow bases for re lief. First, she appears to argue that the di strict court judge should have recused himself because he presided over Townsend’s criminal trial a nd was biased against her. However, “[a]dverse rulings alone are insufficient grou nds for disqualification, as is evidence that the judge criticized or was angry with a party.” In re Am. Ready Mix, Inc., 14 F.3d 1497, 1501 (10th Cir. 199 4) (citations omitted). Townsend does not provide any additional facts to support her claim of bias. Thus, the district court judge was not required to recuse. Townsend also argues that the district court erred in de nying her requests for appointed counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Johnson v. Johnson, 46 6 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006). However, a district court has discretion to request counsel for a litigan t who is unable to afford one. Id. (citing3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). We review the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion, considering “the merits of the claims, the na ture of the claims, [the plaintiff’s] ability to present the claims, and the complexity of the issues.” Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 397 (10th Cir. 2016). The dist rict court’s decision was reasonable: Townsend’s claims are not novel or complex, and she was able to adequately present her case be fore the district court. Finally, Townsend argues that the distri ct court erroneously denied her motion requesting reports and documents , apparently in reference to initial disclosures. But Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B) exempts fro m initial disclosures “an action brought without an attorney by a person in the custody of . . . a state.” T hus, the district court did not err. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court. We DENY Townsend’s motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice 1 and GRANT her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. She is reminded of her obligation to continue making partial payments until the entire filing fee has been paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

1 Townsend mistakenly appears to think that if we dismiss without prejudice, she will be allowed to ref ile her appeal at any time.