IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 29, 2011
JANE DOE, , ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 66, 68), and assuming that plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, have an arguable basis in law or fact, and it appearing from the record that he is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing authority, that discovery neither implicates complex legal or factual issues nor requires 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 request for counsel) it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 66, 68) are DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of petitioner.
2. Plaintiff's motions to extend the discovery period (Doc. 70) and to delay his deposition (Doc. 69) pending this Court's decision on his motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED as moot.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.