ARNOLD v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying pltf's motion for appointment of counsel 56 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/30/14. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RODNEY NEAL ARNOLD,
Plaintiff
v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-0345
Chief Judge Conner

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2014, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 56), and assuming that plaintiff’s claims
have an arguable basis in law and fact1, and it appearing at this early juncture in
the proceedings that he is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims,
and that discovery neither implicates complex legal or factual issues nor requires
factual investigation, see Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57 (listing factors relevant to request
for counsel), and it being well-established that there is no constitutional or statutory
right to counsel in a civil case, Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498; Parham, 126 F.3d at

If the Court determines that a claim has “arguable merit in fact and law,”
consideration of the litigant’s ability to proceed pro se in light of a number of
additional non-exhaustive factors, including: (1) the plaintiff’s ability to present his
or her case; (2) the complexity of the particular legal issues; (3) the degree to which
factual investigation is required and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue such
investigation; (4) the amount a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations;
(5) whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses; and (6) the
plaintiff’s ability to retain and afford counsel on his or her own behalf, is then
undertaken. Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002); Parham v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457–58 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147at 155–57
(3d Cir. 1993).
1

456–57; Tabron, 6 F.3d 153–43, and that district courts have broad discretion to
determine whether to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 56) is DENIED. If further proceedings
demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte
or upon motion of plaintiff.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania