Rivera v. Jenkins et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying pltf's motion for appt of cnsl 14 & directing pltf to file br in opp to defts' motion to dismiss by 9/28/12 w/ failure to comply to result in motion being deemed unopposed. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 09/13/12. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL RIVERA, : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff v. MR. JENKINS, et al., Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-0875 (Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14), and assuming that plaintiff’s claim that defendants denied him psychiatric medication in violation of the Eighth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has an arguable basis in law or fact, and it appearing from the complaint, that he is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate factual investigation, that resolution of the pending motion to dismiss neither implicates complex legal or factual issues nor requires factual investigation or the testimony of expert witnesses as the basis of the motion is plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, 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: 1. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 14) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of petitioner. 2. Plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before September 28, 2012. Failure to comply with this order will result in the motion being deemed unopposed. See L.R. 7.6. S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?