IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 10, 2006
ROBERT PANTON, PLAINTIFF
B.O.P. ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18), and it appearing from the complaint and motions filed by plaintiff (Docs. 1, 17) that plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing authority and that resolution of the facial merit 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. 18) 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.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.