Boring v. Sanders et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Plaintiff's Second Motion 18 MOTION to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Brief in opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. On or before 6/1/12, Plaintiff shall file his Brief in Opposition to the Pending Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 5/11/12. (pw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT C. BORING,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOCTOR SANDERS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-0419
Hon. John E. Jones III

MEMORANDUM and O R D E R
May 11, 2012
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff Robert C. Boring (“Plaintiff” or “Boring”), a state inmate presently
confined at the State Correctional Institution Rockview (“SCI Rockview”) in
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se by filing a civil rights
Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Named as Defendants
are members of the SCI Rockview staff, including Marirosa Lamas, Superintendent;
Robert Marsh, Deputy Superintendent; and Ted Williams, Medical Director; Doctor
Sanders, a Medical Eye Doctor; and Dorina Varner, Chief Grievance Officer for the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”). (Id. at 23.) Boring alleges that
Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need by denying
his requests for surgery to remove cataracts from his left eye.

Service of the Complaint was directed by Order dated March 26, 2012. (Doc.
11.) By Memorandum and Order of the same date, Boring’s request for the
appointment of counsel to represent him in this matter was denied without prejudice.
(Doc. 10.) On April 25, 2012, a Motion to Dismiss Boring’s Complaint was filed on
behalf of Defendants Lamas, Marsh, Williams, and Varner.1 (Doc. 13.) A supporting
brief also was filed. (Doc. 14.) Presently before the Court is a Motion filed by
Boring in which he presents his second request for the appointment of counsel and
also requests an extension of the time to file his brief in opposition to the pending
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 18.)
We find that Boring has failed to set forth sufficient special circumstances or
factors that would warrant reconsideration of our recent determination that the
appointment of counsel is not appropriate based upon our analysis of the Tabron
factors. See Gordon v. Gonzalez, 232 Fed. Appx. 153, 156 n.3 (3d Cir. 2007). In his
renewed request for appointment of counsel, Boring cites an opinion issued by the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Williams v. Hayman, 488

1

The Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Office of General Counsel for the DOC, who has
entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants Lamas, Marsh, Williams, and Varner. (See Doc. 12.)
As explained in the brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Sanders is not an employee
of the DOC and therefore is not represented by DOC counsel. (See Doc. 14 at 1.) On April 26,
2012, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Sanders. (Docs. 16, 17.) A return of service has
not yet been entered on the docket for Defendant Sanders.

2

F. Supp. 2d 446 (D.N.J. June 11, 2007), in which that Court sua sponte determined
that the interests of justice required the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent
a deaf pro se inmate plaintiff. The plaintiff in that case alleged that he was deaf and
was being denied reasonable accommodations at the prison where he was confined in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and also that he was being
deprived of adequate medical care. 488 F. Supp. 2d at 447. The Court determined
that the appointment of counsel was necessary because of the plaintiff’s limited
English reading and writing skills, which impaired his ability to understand court
orders and to communicate with the Court, and which were exemplified in his
submissions to the Court. Id. at 447, 449. Boring alleges that he “suffers from
limited vision, due to cataracts” and “has limited ability to communicate through
reading and writing” and therefore requests the appointment of counsel. (See Doc. 19
at 1.)
The circumstances in Williams are distinguishable from Boring’s
circumstances. While Boring stated in his brief in support of his first request for
counsel that he has to rely on others to assist him in litigating his case, it is apparent
from his submissions thus far that, despite any limitations he has on his vision, he
nevertheless has been able to present his claims in a clear and concise manner and has

3

demonstrated an ability to understand and present the legal authority relevant to his
claims. Thus, while the Court in Williams determined that it would be unfair to
expect the plaintiff in that case to articulate in written English the legal bases for his
claims, Boring already has demonstrated an ability to do that, and therefore, we find
no basis to reconsider our decision not appoint counsel. However, our denial again
will be without prejudice such that, if future proceedings demonstrate the need for
counsel, the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon a properly filed
motion.
Boring also has requested an extension of time to file his opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Lamas, Marsh, Williams, and
Varner. Boring has not specified the amount of additional time he seeks. We find
that an extension of twenty-one (21) days is reasonable, and therefore shall grant that
extension to Boring.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 18) is DENIED
without prejudice.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 18) to file a brief in
opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.

4

3.

On or before June 1, 2012, Plaintiff shall file his brief in opposition to
the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13).

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

5