Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00941—SLR Document 65 Filed 08/18/2005 Page1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JEFFERY ALONZO SIMMS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ; Civ. No. O4—941—SLR
MAJOR R.L. HUGHES, LT. COL. g
THOMAS F. MACLEISH, and COL. )
L. AARON CHAFFINCH, )
Defendants. g
O R D E R ,
At Wilmington this [8** day of August, 2005, having {
considered plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel; {
IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 62) is denied for ?
the reasons that follow:l Q
1. A pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis has i
no constitutional or statutory right to representation by counsel. I
See Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477 (3d Cir. 1981); Parham v. W
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456—57 (3d Cir. 1997). The “decision to 3
appoint counsel may be made at any point in the litigation, and may F
be made by a district court sua sponte." Montgomery v. Pinchak, T
294 F.3d 492, 499 (Bd Cir. 2002). 1

2. It is within the court’s discretion, however, to 1
seek representation by counsel for plaintiff, but this effort is 2
’Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis i
(D.I. 63) is denied as moot. g
I

Case1:04-cv—00941—SLR Document 65 Filed 08/18/2005 Page20f2
made only “upon a showing of special circumstances indicating the
likelihood of substantial prejudice to [plaintiff] resulting . ..
from [plaintiff's] probable inability without such assistance to
present the facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but
arguably meritorious case.” Smith—Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26
(3d Cir. 1984); accord Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir.
1993)(representation by counsel may be appropriate under certain
circumstances, after a finding that a plaintiff's claim has
arguable merit in fact and law). After passing this threshold
inquiry, the court should consider a number of factors when
assessing a request for counsel, including:
(1) the plaintiff’s ability to present his or
her own case; (2) the difficulty of the particular
legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual
investigation will be necessary and the ability
of the plaintiff to pursue investigation;
(4) the plaintiff’s capacity to retain counsel on
his own behalf; (5) the extent to which a case
is likely to turn on credibility determinations;
and (6) whether the case will require testimony
from expert witnesses.
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57; accord Parham, 126 F.3d at 457; Montgom—
ery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d at 499.
3. Having reviewed plaintiff's papers in light of the i
(
authority outlined above, the court does not find plaintiff's
allegations of such a complex nature that representation by counsel l
is warranted at this time.
Eg 5 5
United Sta s District Judge P
2 l