Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carey v. Johnson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


October 2, 2006

DUWAYNE CAREY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT BARRY JOHNSON; SUSAN MYERS, CHCH; MATTHEW DOC. NO. 56 MORROW, EMPLOYMENT COORDINATOR; MARK HAMMER, P.A.; DR. JAMIL AHMED; AND DR. DURRE AHMED, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

Judge Terrence F. McVerry

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration(Doc. No. 59) of his prior request for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a deliberate indifference to his medical needs while incarcerated. Specifically, he states that he has been diagnosed with high blood pressure and a hernia and he is being denied appropriate treatment for these ailments. He further alleges that he is being forced to work in the kitchen despite medical restrictions.

In its Order dated January 27, 2006, the Court outlined it's reasons for denying Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. There is no doubt that it is difficult for any person who is not trained in the law to file a civil action pro se. However, there is a shortage of attorneys willing and qualified to handle the pro se prisoner civil rights matters, which are filed in abundance in this court. At this point, Defendant's have filed a Motion to Dismiss and it is not clear whether Plaintiff will be able to set forth a claim that can be adjudicated. Should the case survive dispositive motions and proceed to trial, this Court will reconsider the appointment of counsel for trial purposes. The reasoning set forth in the Court's January 27, 2006 Order is also incorporated herein.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are allowed ten (10) days from this date to appeal this order to a district judge pursuant to Rule 72.1.3(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates. Failure to appeal within ten (10) days shall constitute waiver of the right to appeal.

Lisa Pupo Lenihan United States Magistrate Judge

20061002

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.