IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 5, 2011
MICHAEL E. SILUK, JR.,
CATHERINE MERWIN, DIRECTOR OF PERRY COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
ORDER AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) of United States Magistrate Judge
Martin C. Carlson, recommending that plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) be granted (see Doc. 9, at 4), that
plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and that the case be closed, and upon
further consideration of the second application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 11), which the court construes as a motion to proceed without full
prepayment of fees and costs, and the motion to appoint counsel (Doc.
13) filed by plaintiff, and it appearing that indigent civil litigants
have no statutory right to appointed counsel, see Tabron v. Grace, 6
F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Mallard v. United States
District Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (holding
that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize federal courts to require
representation of an indigent civil litigant by an unwilling
attorney), but that district courts have discretionary authority to
appoint counsel for an indigent litigant in a civil case, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating that "[t]he court may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel"); Tabron, 6 F.3d at
157-58 (stating that § 1915(e) "gives district courts broad discretion
to determine whether appointment of counsel is warranted, and the
determination must be made on a case-by-case-basis"),*fn1
and it further appearing that the Third Circuit instructs the
district court to consider, as a threshold matter, whether plaintiff's
claim has "arguable merit in fact and law," see Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155,
and the court finding that the threshold requirement is not satisfied
because plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
the Eleventh Amendment, and the doctrine of judicial and
quasi-judicial immunity, and following an independent review of the
record and noting that plaintiff filed objections to the report on
October 5, 2011 (Doc. 21), and the Court finding Judge Carlson's
analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court further
finding plaintiff's objections*fn2 to be without merit and
squarely addressed by Judge Carlson's report (Doc. 9), it is hereby
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's first application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is CONSTRUED as a motion to proceed without full prepayment of fees and costs and is GRANTED as so construed.
3. Plaintiff's second application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 11) is CONSTRUED as a motion to proceed without full prepayment of fees and costs and is DENIED as duplicative.
4. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge