Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-1729.
February 6, 2007
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 71), and it appearing from the complaint and other documents filed by plaintiff that he is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing authority, and that resolution of the merit of plaintiff's eighth amendment denial of adequate medical care claims 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 the motion (Doc. 71) is DENIED. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding 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 will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of petitioner. See id.