Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00015-JJF Document 22 Filed 08/O1/2007 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM FRANCIS, JR., :
Plaintiff, ;
v. ; Civ. Action No. 07-015-JJF
WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL, E
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,:
COMMISSIONER STAN TAYLOR, and :
and JOYCE TALLEY, :
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AC Wilmington this i, day of August, 2007;
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For The
Appointment Of Counsel and supporting memorandum. (D.I. 18, 19.)
For the reasons discussed, the Motion will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff William Francis, Jr., who appears prg sg, is an
inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center. He filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his
rights under the Eighth Amendment. More specifically, Plaintiff
alleges Defendants are deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical need by failing to treat his advanced periodontal
disease.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment
of Counsel. (D.I. 18.) Plaintiff seeks appointed counsel on the
bases that he is unable to afford counsel, the issues in the case
are complex, he has a limited knowledge of the law, he does not

Case 1:07-cv-00015-JJF Document 22 Filed 08/O1/2007 Page 2 of 4
have access to computer assisted legal research, he does not have
unrestricted telephone use or access to e—mai1 and facsimile to
contact expert witness and professionals, and he does not have
the ability to investigate the facts and analyze dental/medical
records.
II. DISCUSSION
Indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional
nor a statutory right to appointed counsel. Parham v. Johnson,
126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, district
courts have statutory authority to appoint counsel for indigent
civil litigants at any time during the litigation. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) (providing that “[t]he court may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel"); Montgomery v.
Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 504 (3d Cir. 2002). Section 1915(e)(1)
affords district courts broad discretion in determining whether
appointment of counsel in a civil case is appropriate. Tabron v.
grape, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993).
When evaluating a motion for the appointment of counsel
filed by a pro sg plaintiff, initially, the Court must examine
the merits of the plaintiff’s claim to determine whether it has
some arguable merit in fact and law. §ee Parham, 126 F.3d at 457
(citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157). If the case has arguable merit
in law and fact the Court should proceed to consider (1)
Plaintiff's ability to present his own case; (2) the difficulty
- 2 -

Case 1:07-cv-00015-JJF Document 22 Filed 08/O1/2007 Page 3 of 4
of the particular legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual
investigation will be necessary and the ability of Plaintiff to
pursue investigation; (4) 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 of expert witnesses. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at
499 (citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-56, 157 n.5). The list of
factors is not exhaustive.
The Court assumes solely for the purpose of deciding the
pending Motion, that Plaintiff’s claims have arguable merit, and
will, therefore, consider the factors articulated in Parham and
Tabron. Keeping in mind the practical considerations cited above
and exercising the broad discretion offered the Court, the Court
concludes that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at
this time.
Plaintiff proceeds in fgrma pauperis and it appears,
therefore, he is unable to afford legal representation.
Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to present his own case.
His filings are comprehensible and demonstrate some knowledge of
the legal system. While he does have a dental/medical claim, at
this juncture it is not evident that expert testimony will be
required. Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice,
Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of Counsel. (D.I. 18.)
- 3 -

Case1:O7-cv-00015-JJF Document 22 Filed 08/O1/2007 Page40f4
111. c0NcLUs10N
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Pleintiff's Motion For
Appointment Of Counsel (D.I. IB) is DENIED without prejudice.
~-*= ’”’ ‘ ””'‘‘‘ q ‘
UN` Vi ·‘`‘‘ “1·T s DISTRIC; QUDGE
..4-