Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0366.
April 25, 2005
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2005, upon consideration of plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 63), the first motion having been denied by order of court dated June 17, 2004 (Doc. 20), and it appearing from the complaint, amended complaint, motions, and briefs filed by plaintiff that plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate investigation and discovery requests and appropriate citations to governing authority, and that resolution of plaintiff's claims neither implicates complex legal or factual issues or requires the testimony of expert witnesses, see Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002) (citingTabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 63) is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff.