Plaintiff is not entitled to representation by counsel. Appointment of counsel in a civil matter is done on a 1

voluntary basis. If in fact Plaintiff hires an attorney to represent him in this matter, that attorney must file an appearance

with this Court.

The parties have not appeared before this Court for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, wherein this Court sets 2

the parameters for discovery. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore filed prematurely. Plaintiff may re-file the above-mentioned

motion at the appropriate time.

This Court remains without jurisdiction to change Plaintiff’s place of confinement, when that confinement is

3

within a state facility.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEROY ANTONIO WILSON |

Plaintiff, |

| CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-2997

v. |

|

JAMIE O’NEILL, ET AL. |

Defendants. |

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3 day of January, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Petitions to Appoint rd

Counsel (Docs. 3, 14, 25, 29), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Petitions

are DENIED.

1

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request to Command Involved Parties to Send Requested

Documents (Doc. 14) and Plaintiff’s Petition to Command Defendants’ Attorney to Turn Over Pictures

of Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that the Petitions are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s Petition for an Update on Pending § 1983 Civil Rights 2

Complaint (Doc. 14) is DENIED AS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER. 

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Renewed Petition for Change of Venue Concerning Custody

& Confinement (Doc. 15) and Petition to Review Docket #7 and Re-rule on the Said Petition (Doc. 22),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that the Petitions are DENIED.

3

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Petition to Order a Lean [sic] Against All Defendants’ Assets

(Doc. 18), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Petition is DENIED.
The parties have not appeared before this Court for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, wherein this Court sets 4

the case management timetable. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore filed prematurely. Plaintiff may re-file the abovementioned motion at the appropriate time.

Pro se Plaintiff was served with the above-mentioned motion by first-class mail on November 1, 2005. Plaintiff had 5

seventeen (17) days to respond. As of January 3, 2006, no response from Plaintiff was filed with this Court.

2

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Petition to Enter a Default Judgment Against Defendants (Doc.

30), and Defendants’ Response thereto (Doc. 32), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that

Plaintiff’s Petition is DENIED.

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request for an Extension of Time to Settle the Case (Doc. 31),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole,

Dennis Powell, and Scott Dominick, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 34) is GRANTED

AS UNOPPOSED as follows: 5

1. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendants, Pennsylvania Board of

Probation & Parole, Dennis Powell, and Scott Dominick, and against Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a response to Defendants’ Motion within ten

(10) days of the date of this Order, on or before January 13, 2006. If Plaintiff

does file a response, the Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34)

shall be reinstated.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.