From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heleva v. Kunkle

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 22, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-1488 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-1488.

February 22, 2006


ORDER


AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 86) for appointment of counsel, and it appearing that resolution of the 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 request for counsel), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 86) is DENIED. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that prisoners have no constitutional or statutory rights to appointment of counsel in a civil case). If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of petitioner. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156.


Summaries of

Heleva v. Kunkle

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 22, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-1488 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2006)
Case details for

Heleva v. Kunkle

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL A. HELEVA, Plaintiff, v. SANDRA KUNKLE, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 22, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-1488 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2006)