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

Case 1:06-cv-00072-JJF Document 26 Filed 06/19/2007 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Ambrose Sykes, ;
Plaintiff, ;
v. Z Civil Action No. 06-72-JJF
Thomas Carroll, et al., i
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion For
Appointment of Counsel (D.I. 23). For the reasons discussed, the
Motion will be denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff Ambrose Sykes is a pro se litigant. From November
29, 2004 until July 7, 2005, Plaintiff was incarcerated as a
pretrial detainee at the Delaware Correctional Center (“DCC”) in
Smyrna, Delaware after being charged with the crime of murder. On
July 7, 2005, he was moved to the detainee tier in SHU #18
(isolation) where he remained until September 21, 2006, at which
time he was moved to the tier for death sentence inmates in SHU
#18, Plaintiff alleges that this move was unwarranted and in
violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual
punishment.
II. Discussion E
Although indigent parties in civil cases do not have a 2
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel, 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:06-cv-00072-JJF Document 26 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 4
§ 1915(e)(1) affords district courts discretion to request
counsel to represent indigent parties. Parham v. Johnson, 126
5.3d 454, 455-57 (3d Cir. 1997); 28 u.s.c. § 1915(e)(1). In
Tabron v. Grace, the Third Circuit established a six factor test
to determine when it is appropriate for the court to request
counsel for an indigent party. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155
(3d Cir. 1993). lf the litigant's case has arguable merit in
fact or law, a court should then examine:
1) The plaintiff's ability to present his case;
2) The difficulty of the legal issues;
3) The degree to which factual investigation will be
necessary and the plaintiff’s ability to pursue such
investigation;
4) The plaintiff’s ability to retain counsel on his own;
5) The extent to which the case is likely to turn on
credibility determinations; and
6) Whether the case will require expert testimony.
Id. at 155-157. These factors are not exhaustive, but when most
of them have been satisfied a court should attempt to obtain
counsel. Parham, 126 F.3d at 461. Keeping in mind the practical
considerations cited above and exercising the broad discretion
available to the Court under Section 1915(e)(1), the Court
concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this
time.
Plaintiff’s case has survived a screening for frivolousness,
thereby meeting the “arguably meritorious" threshold requirement
to invoke consideration of the Tabron factors. Considering these
factors, the Court first concludes that Plaintiff possesses some
n
QI
2 )
)
)
yi

Case 1:06-cv-00072-JJF Document 26 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 4
knowledge of the legal system. He has demonstrated an ability to
present his case through his various filings and responses to
motions. Plaintiff has made a number of pgp se filings which
clearly and articulately outline his claims against Defendants.
Furthermore, at this early juncture in the case, there is no
evidence that Plaintiff cannot maneuver the Court’s discovery
rules or that his confinement will hinder his ability to argue
his claims. In addition, the issue raised by Plaintiff’s
complaint and the proof needed to support his claims are not
complex. To succeed on his claims, Plaintiff needs only prove
that the nature of his incarceration did not warrant pretrial
isolation. Although Plaintiff's ability to pursue a factual
investigation of his claims will be difficult due to the
restrictions of isolation, his case does not require extensive
factual investigation. The events surrounding Plaintiff’s present
allegations all occurred within the institution and most of the
primary facts in this case are not in dispute, mitigating any
investigative difficulties that may arise while Plaintiff remains
in isolation. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims as
alleged are also not likely to turn on credibility
determinations, further weighing against appointment of counsel.
The parties do not dispute Plaintiff’s contention that he did not
cause any major incidents prior to being placed in isolation.
There is also no dispute over the restrictions that are placed on
3 Z
N


Case1:O6-cv-00072-JJF Document 26 Filed 06/19/2007 Page40f4
detainees housed in isolation. Further, the Court concludes that
expert testimony is not necessary in this case, as the issues are
not so complex as to require any expert opinions. Finally, though
Plaintiff lacks the funds to retain counsel, this factor carries
little weight in deciding whether to appoint counsel, because
indigent litigants will almost always be able to satisfy it.
Gordon, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9922 at *11. Thus, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently satisfied the
Tabron factors at this juncture, and therefore, counsel should
not be appointed at this time.
@@73
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _lf1 day of June,
2007, that Plaintiff’s Motion For The Appointment Of Counsel
(D.I. 23) is DENIED.
\ ¤‘~ S E L ...
UN .D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE