IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 11, 2007
ELLA MAE HENDERSON, PLAINTIFF
MRS. KERNS-BARR & OFFICER RIPPEY, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2007, upon consideration of the correspondence from pro se plaintiff dated June 3, 2007 (Doc. 8), requesting that counsel be appointed to assist plaintiff in litigating the above-captioned case, and it appearing that resolution of 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 a request for counsel), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's correspondence (Doc. 8) is CONSTRUED as a motion for appointment of counsel and is DENIED as so construed. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that prisoners have no constitutional rights to appointment of counsel in a civil case).
2. Should further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon a motion by plaintiff. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.