IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 3, 2012
EDWARD MILLER, PLAINTIFF
EUGENE BERDANIER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 3rd day of July, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 27), and it appearing from the complaint (Doc. 1) and subsequent filings (see Docs. 14, 26, 29) 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 and it appearing that plaintiff is not incompetent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), see Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2012), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 27) is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff. See id.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge