IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 1, 2007
DANIEL A. HELEVA, PLAINTIFF
SGT. JOSEPH KRAMER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 62), and it appearing that plaintiff's prior motion for appointment of counsel was denied because "plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing authority (Docs. 1, 25, 26, 49), and that resolution of the merits of plaintiff's claims neither implicates complex legal or factual issues nor requires factual investigation or the testimony of expert witnesses, see Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F. 3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002) see Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993) (listing factors relevant to request for counsel)" (Doc. 55), and it appearing that plaintiff was advised that "[i]f further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff" (Id.), and it further appearing that nothing has transpired that would demonstrate the need for counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 62) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.