IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 3, 2009
DANIEL HARPER, PLAINTIFF
JEFFERY BEARD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2009, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 8), which seeks 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. 8) 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.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.