Gregory v. Bureau of Prisons
Filing
29
ORDER denying pltf's motion for appt of cnsl 14 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/2/16. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOWARD SCOTT GREGORY,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-966
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2016, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 14) 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 fact,1 and it
appearing, at this juncture in the proceedings, 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 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,
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), the court must consider 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. 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 15557.
1
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. 14) 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?