From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Best v. S.C.I. Huntingdon

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Feb 2, 2022
Civil Action 3:19-CV-1599 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:19-CV-1599

02-02-2022

RONALD BEST, Plaintiff, v. S.C.I. HUNTINGDON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ROBERT D. MARIANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS 2 nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022, upon consideration of the “Pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment for Attorney” (Doc. 17) filed by Plaintiff Ronald Best, because the above-captioned civil matter was closed on February 4, 2020, (Doc. 16), no additional matters are pending before the Court, and Plaintiff is requesting an attorney only to review his case (id. at 1), the Court has no basis upon which to conclude that Plaintiff is entitled to the appointment of counsel, see, e.g., Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993), AND ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 17) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Best v. S.C.I. Huntingdon

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Feb 2, 2022
Civil Action 3:19-CV-1599 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022)
Case details for

Best v. S.C.I. Huntingdon

Case Details

Full title:RONALD BEST, Plaintiff, v. S.C.I. HUNTINGDON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 2, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 3:19-CV-1599 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022)