Blanchard II v. Amin

M.D. Pennsylvania

Blanchard II v. Amin

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania·Decided March 1, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-00159·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSE BLANCHARD II, Civil No. 3:23-cv-159 Plaintiff (Judge Mariani) V, FILED DIPTIAMIN, CARMEN KATCHKO, SCRANTON LEA MARTIN, KEVIN RANSOM, MAR 04 2023 Defendants . woof DEPUTY CLERK fy ORDER AND NOW, this 2 day of February, 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to appoint counsel, and upon review of the factors the Court should consider when determining whether to appoint counsel for a pro se plaintiff, and it appearing, at this early juncture in the proceedings, that Plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims, and it being well-established that indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, see Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498; Parham, 126 F.3d at 456-57; Tabron, 6 F.3d at 153-54, and that district courts have broad discretion to determine whether to appoint counsel under 28

1 Pursuant to Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993), the Court should consider the litigant’s ability to proceed pro se in light of a number of 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 155-57.

U.S.C. § 1915, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to appoint counsel is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of Plaintiff.

oN

(Wut Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSE BLANCHARD II, Civil No. 3:23-cv-159 Plaintiff (Judge Mariani) V, FILED DIPTIAMIN, CARMEN KATCHKO, SCRANTON LEA MARTIN, KEVIN RANSOM, MAR 04 2023 Defendants . woof DEPUTY CLERK fy ORDER AND NOW, this 2 day of February, 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to appoint counsel, and upon review of the factors the Court should consider when determining whether to appoint counsel for a pro se plaintiff, and it appearing, at this early juncture in the proceedings, that Plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims, and it being well-established that indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, see Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498; Parham, 126 F.3d at 456-57; Tabron, 6 F.3d at 153-54, and that district courts have broad discretion to determine whether to appoint counsel under 28

1 Pursuant to Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993), the Court should consider the litigant’s ability to proceed pro se in light of a number of 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 155-57.

U.S.C. § 1915, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to appoint counsel is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of Plaintiff.

oN

(Wut Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

Blanchard II v. Amin, (M.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Blanchard II v. Amin (Blanchard II v. Amin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related