IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 22, 2006
DANIEL A. HELEVA, PLAINTIFF
SANDRA KUNKLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 86) for appointment of counsel, and it appearing that resolution of the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 neither implicates complex legal or factual issues nor requires significant factual investigation or the testimony of expert witnesses, see Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993) (listing factors relevant to request for counsel), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 86) is DENIED. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that prisoners have no constitutional or statutory rights to appointment of counsel in a civil case). If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of petitioner. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.