IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT B. GREEN, : No. 4:04-cv-01888

:

Petitioner : Judge Jones

:

v. :

:

SCOTT TOWNSHIP, et al., :

:

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

April 13, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Currently pending before the Court are pro se Defendants James and Stacy

Gogas’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 47) and Motion to Dismiss (doc. 48)

filed with this Court on March 28, 2006. We shall analyze the merits of each Motion

in turn.

A. Motion to Appoint Counsel

The Defendants have previously filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel with this

Court on October 7, 2004 (doc. 10) which this Court denied by Order dated

October 14, 2004. (Rec. Doc. 11). In our Order (doc. 11), we noted that the

Defendants could file another Motion to Appoint Counsel for our consideration,

upon the appropriate showing of the need for counsel.

Case 4:04-cv-01888-JEJ Document 49 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 3
1

 The Tabron court noted that “. . . the district court must consider as a threshold matter the

merits.” Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. Next if a claim has arguable merit, “ability to present his or her claim

is, of course, a significant factor that must be considered in determining whether to appoint counsel.” 

Id. at 156. If a litigant “with a claim of arguable merit is incapable of presenting his or her case, serious

consideration should be given to the appointing of counsel.” Id.

As noted in our October 14, 2004 Order, this Court has wide discretion in

determining whether to appoint counsel. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d

Cir. 1993).1 Under Tabron, a district court’s decision whether to appoint counsel

in a civil rights action should be “informed” by a consideration of the following

factors: the “difficulty of the particular legal issues;” “the degree to which factual

investigation will be required and the ability of the indigent [party] to pursue such

investigation;” whether a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; whether

expert testimony is required; and whether the litigant is capable of retaining counsel

on his or her own behalf. Id. at 156, 157 n.5. The United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit has reiterated that the criteria developed in Tabron should be

employed in addressing the appointment of counsel issue. Montgomery v.

Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002)(citation omitted).

Once again, as we noted in our October 14, 2004 Order (doc. 11), there

appear to be no circumstances which warrant the appointment of counsel at this

time. The Defendants have not provided this Court with any new information and

the record is devoid of any evidence or facts that would allow us to apply the

Tabron factors to the Defendants’ situation. Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion to

Case 4:04-cv-01888-JEJ Document 49 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 3
2

 As we noted in our October 14, 2004 Order (doc. 11), if the Defendants’ file yet another

motion to appoint counsel, we will reconsider this issue in the future, provided that the future motion 

makes the proper showing of the need for counsel

Appoint Counsel (doc. 47) will be denied.2

B. Motion to Dismiss

The Defendants’ James and Stacy Gogas have also filed a Motion to

Dismiss (doc. 48) with this Court. Although they did not file a brief in support of

the motion in accordance with the Local Rules, we will construe the Motion to

Dismiss (doc. 48) as a motion in brief. However, in light of the fact that the Motion

to Dismiss (doc. 48) does not contain any legal argument, there is no need for the

Plaintiff to render a response and we shall deny the Motion to Dismiss.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 47) is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 48) is DENIED.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01888-JEJ Document 49 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 3