Sorokaput v. Schuylkill County Prison et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETER SOROKAPUT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON, et
al.,
Defendants.
No. 4:26-CV-01039
(Chief Judge Brann)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16 th day of October 2026, in accordance with the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Section 1983 complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
2. 	Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 3, 11) for appointment of counsel are
DISMISSED as moot in light of paragraph 1 above. 1
3. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
1 	The motions for appointment counsel, if considered on the merits, would be denied, as
Plaintiff’s Section 1983 complaint does not have “arguable merit in fact and law,” a threshold
requirement for appointment of counsel. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).
Case 4:26-cv-01039-MWB-MP Document 21 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 1