IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 4, 2008
GARTH CARLSON, PLAINTIFF
MR. BENNETT, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2008, upon consideration of plaintiff's letters to the court requesting counsel (Docs. 19 & 21), construed as motions for appointment of counsel, and it appearing from the complaint (Doc. 1) 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 Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993) (listing factors relevant to a request for counsel),*fn1 it is hereby ORDERED that the motions (Docs. 19 & 21) are DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff. See id.