From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Probation Office

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 2, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0951 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 2, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0951.

September 2, 2008


ORDER


AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2008, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 46), for appointment of counsel to assist plaintiff in litigating the above-captioned case, and it appearing that resolution of 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 a request for counsel), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 46) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that prisoners have no constitutional rights to appointment of counsel in a civil case).
2. Should further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon a motion by plaintiff. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156.


Summaries of

White v. Probation Office

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 2, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0951 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 2, 2008)
Case details for

White v. Probation Office

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY WHITE, Plaintiff v. PROBATION OFFICE, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 2, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0951 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 2, 2008)