Heim v. Dauphin County Prison et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 82 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 8/4/11 (jam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH HEIM,
Plaintiff
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-10-1491
(Judge Caputo)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Presently before the Court is Joseph Heim’s second Motion for Appointment
of Counsel in this matter. Doc. 82. It is nearly identical to his original request for
counsel. The Court denied Mr. Heim’s first request for counsel. See Doc. 78. For
reasons cited in our earlier June 17, 2011, order denying Plaintiff’s first motion for
appointment of counsel, we will deny his second request.
Plaintiff has recently filed an Amended Complaint. See Doc. 81. Having
reviewed the Amended Complaint, complete with legal citations, his ability to
present said claims, and the complexity of the legal issues involved, the Court finds
the appointment of counsel in this matter is not warranted at this juncture. See
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155, 156-157 (3d Cir. 1993)(stating factors to be
considered in deciding motion for appointment of counsel). Additionally, the Court
notes that we have recently directed service of the Amended Complaint on the
newly named defendants. Defendants will either challenge the legal basis of the

amended complaint or file an answer. It is not until these matters are resolved will
the Court be able to more thoroughly examine the threshold question of the
arguable factual and legal merit of Mr. Heim’s claims for the purpose of appointing
him counsel. There is no evidence, at this point, that any prejudice will result in the
absence of counsel, especially given the very early procedural posture of this case.
Accordingly, Mr. Heim’s second request for counsel will be denied. In the
event, however, that future proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the
matter may be reconsidered, either by the court on its on motion, or upon another
motion filed by Plaintiff.
AND NOW, this 4th

day of AUGUST, 2011, it is ordered that Mr.

Heim’s Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (doc. 82) is denied.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge

-2-