McAllister v. Wiekl et al
Filing
22
ORDER denying pltf's motion for appt of cnsl 18 , directing pltf to file brief in opp to defts' MTD 15 by 5/3/13 & directing Clrk of Ct to terminate defts' MTD 12 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 4/29/13. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON MCALLISTER,
Plaintiff
v.
JOSHUA WIEKL, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-2273
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2013, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18), and assuming that plaintiff’s claims
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, have an arguable basis in law or fact, and it
appearing from the complaint (Doc. 1), and amended complaint (Doc. 14), that he is
capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims, that neither complex legal
or factual issues are implicated and there is no need for 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:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 18) is DENIED. If
further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will
be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff.
2.
Plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Doc. 15) plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 14) on or before May 3,
2013. Failure to comply with this order will result in the motion being
deemed unopposed. See L.R. 7.6.
3.
The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Doc. 12) plaintiff’s complaint as it has been rendered moot by
the filing of the amended complaint (Doc. 14).
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?