IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 17, 2006
MIKE PEREZ, PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 106), and it appearing that while plaintiff's case has arguable merit in fact and law, based upon the progression of the litigation thus far, including the numerous motions filed by plaintiff and his ability to navigate an evidentiary hearing, it is clear that plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing authority, and it further appearing that at this point, resolution of plaintiff's claims neither implicates complex legal or factual issues nor requires 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. 106) is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff. See id.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.