McBride v. Lebanon County Commissioners et al
ORDER denying pro se pltf's motion for appt of cnsl 12 , granting motion 13 for ext of time to file objs to R&R until close of business 11/8/13. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/21/13. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2336
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2013, upon consideration of the pro se
plaintiff’s motions (Doc. 12-13) for appointment of counsel and for an extension of
time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
(Doc. 11), and the court observing as a threshold matter that indigent civil plaintiffs
are not entitled to counsel, see Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir.
2002) (“Indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right
to appointed counsel”), but that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits a district court to
request an attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff on a pro bono basis if
circumstances compel that result, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) (“The court may request
an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”), and the court
further observing that the Third Circuit has directed courts to consider such factors
as the plaintiff’s ability to present his or her case, the complexity of the legal issues,
the degree of factual investigation required, whether the case requires expert
witness testimony, and whether the litigant can otherwise afford to retain counsel
in making the appointment determination, Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457
(3d Cir. 1997), but noting that the plaintiff has offered no intelligible argument or
explanation in support of her blanket demand for counsel (Doc. 12 (citing generally
to Parham and § 1915(e) and requesting the court to “assign an attorney”)), and the
court declining to presume that the balance of the relevant Parham factors weigh in
favor of requesting pro bono counsel without a factual basis upon which to do so,
but nonetheless concluding that an extension of time in which to file objections is
warranted in deference to the plaintiff’s pro se status, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The motion (Doc. 12) for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) is DENIED.
The motion (Doc. 13) for an extension of time in which to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc.
11) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation (Doc. 11) by the close of business on November 8,
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?