Reigle v. Kovach et al
Filing
11
ORDER DENYING pltf's motion for appointment of counsel 9 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 8/7/15. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHAN JOSEPH REIGLE,
:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN BRUCE KOVACH, et al., :
:
Defendants
:
CIVIL NO. 1:15-CV-1408
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2015, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 9) for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and
assuming that plaintiff’s claims have an arguable basis in law and fact1, and it
appearing, at this early juncture in the proceedings, from the complaint (Doc. 1) and
the instant motion (Doc. 9), that plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully
prosecuting his claims, and that discovery neither implicates complex legal or
factual issues nor requires factual investigation or the testimony of expert
If the Court determines that a claim has “arguable merit in fact and law,”
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993), 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, 6 F.3d at 155-57.
1
witnesses, and it being well-established that indigent civil litigants possess neither a
constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, Montgomery
v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002), 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. 9) 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
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?