IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 2, 2008
ANTHONY WHITE, PLAINTIFF
PROBATION OFFICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2008, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 46), for appointment of counsel 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 motion (Doc. 46) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 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
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.