Miller v. Miller et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURTNEY MILLER, 	: Civil No. 3:25-CV-1454
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: (Judge Saporito)
v. 	:
: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
ERIC MILLER, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This 	matter 	has 	been 	remanded 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for
consideration of the plaintiff’s various filings, including a screening
review of her amended complaint, her motions for temporary restraining
orders, and her motion to appoint counsel.1 	In the interim, the plaintiff
has filed a motion to amend her complaint, which attaches an amended
complaint that asserts claims on behalf of a second plaintiff who has since
filed her own civil lawsuit. 2 	The plaintiff then filed a supplement,
requesting 	us 	to 	strike 	the 	claims 	in 	her 	proposed 	third 	amended
complaint relating to the second proposed plaintiff and consider only
1 Docs. 2, 10, 19, 21. 	We will address the plaintiff’s motions for TRO in
a separate Report and Recommendation to the district court.
2 Doc. 30;
see Voyton v. Voyton, et al., Civ. No. 3:26-CV-27.
Case 3:25-cv-01454-JFS Document 35 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
those claims related to her.3 	We will GRANT the plaintiff’s motion to
file a third amended complaint, but direct the plaintiff to file a single,
comprehensive, and concise amended complaint asserting only those
claims 	that 	she 	has 	against 	the 	various 	defendants 	and 	proposed
defendants—the amended complaint should not contain any claims on
behalf of Courtney Voyton, who has filed her own lawsuit. 	The plaintiff
shall file her third amended complaint on or before February 13, 2026.
The plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 4
While we understand the plaintiff’s interest in securing court-appointed
counsel, we also recognize that there is neither a constitutional nor a
statutory 	right 	to 	counsel 	for 	civil 	litigants. 5 	Instead, 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1915(e)(1) provides that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to employ counsel.” 	The decision to appoint counsel
under §1915(e)(1) is discretionary and must be made on a case-by-case
basis. 6
3 Doc. 32.
4 Doc. 19.
5
	Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997);
Tabron v.
Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993).
6
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157-58.
Case 3:25-cv-01454-JFS Document 35 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has set forth six factors to guide
our consideration of the plaintiff’s request for counsel:
(1) the plaintiff’s ability to present his or her own case; (2) the
complexity of the legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual
investigation will be necessary 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 the testimony of expert witnesses; [and] (6) whether
the plaintiff can attain and afford counsel on his own behalf.7
Additionally, 	the 	Court 	of 	Appeals has 	recognized 	several 	practical
considerations that we must consider, such as the number of
pro se
actions filed in federal court; the lack of funding for court-appointed
counsel; 	and 	the 	limited 	number 	of 	lawyers 	willing 	to 	undertake
representation without compensation. 8 	“[V]olunteer lawyer time is
extremely valuable. 	Hence, district courts should not request counsel
under § 1915(d) indiscriminately.” 9
Here, our analysis of these factors leads us to conclude that counsel
should not be appointed at this time. 	At the outset, this case is in its
early stages, with the plaintiff being given an opportunity to file an
7
Parham, 126 F.3d at 457.
8
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157.
9
Id.
Case 3:25-cv-01454-JFS Document 35 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
amended complaint, which will be subject to a mandatory screening
review 	due 	to 	the 	plaintiff’s
	in 	forma 	pauperis 	status. 	While 	the
plaintiff generally cites her indigent status and unfamiliarity with the
law to indicate she is unable to proceed
pro se, the facts of this case
appear to be well known to the plaintiff, whose proposed amended
complaint contains over 100 pages of factual averments and legal claims
against the defendants. 	Further, while the plaintiff appears to heavily
rely on the fact that she is a survivor of domestic violence, this does not,
in itself, entitle her to pro bono counsel in this matter.
Considering the relevant factors, we will DENY this request to
appoint counsel at this time without prejudice to re-examining this issue
at the request of the plaintiff, or
sua sponte, as this litigation progresses.
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01454-JFS Document 35 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4