Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00019-SLR Document 28 Filed O3/29/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOHN ROBERTSON )
Plaintiff g
) C.A. No. 06-19-***
v. )
)
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL )
SYSTEMS )
Defendant g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
John Robertson ("Robertson") is an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution ("HRYCl"), who tiled this pro se civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 10, 2006. D.|. 2. He was granted permission to
proceed in forma pauperis. D.l. 3. Previously, Robertson filed two Motions to
Appoint Counsel (D.l. 4, 6), which were denied without prejudice with leave to
refile. D.|. 7. He recently filed another motion for the appointment of counsel on
July 24, 2006. D.I. 19. For reasons similar to those cited in the Order of March
17, 2006, Robertson’s renewed motion is denied.
I. Robertson’s Facts
Robertson alleges in his complaint that on December 14, 2005, he was
injured when a metal grating in an elevator fell on him striking his head. He
claims that as a result of this injury, he experienced headaches, lightheadedness,
soreness in his neck and shoulder and ringing in his right ear. Although
Robertson was seen by a nurse shortly after the incident, he claims that he was

Case 1:06-cv-00019-SLR Document 28 Filed O3/29/2007 Page 2 of 4
given a cursory examination and received inadequate medical care. ln his
amended complaint, Robertson asserted additional claims against Correctional
Medical Systems ("CMS"), that he continued to receive inadequate medical care
in response to his complaints during the months of December 2005 through April
2006. D.l. 12. Robertson alleges that this substandard medical care constituted
malpractice and deliberate indifference for which he is requesting both punitive
and compensatory damages.
II. Procedural Status
As noted previously, this is Robertson's third motion for counsel in which
he claims that
[d]ue to the complexity of issues, research required and knowledge
of the law needed, the next step is beyond my scope; Due to my
incarceration at HRYCI. The appointment of counsel will serve the
best interest of justice.
D.l. 19.
On March 17, 2006, the court reviewed and screened the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, which resulted in dismissal ofthe
claims against the Prison Commissary/Swanson Services and Warden Rafael
Williams as either frivolous or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. D.l. 7. In the March 17, 2006 Order, the court also addressed
R0beitson’s two previously tiled motions for appointment of counsel and denied
Robertson’s requests, finding that the allegations were not of a complex nature
and that Robertson was not being denied access to the law library under the
standards set forth in Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1993).
2

Case 1:06-cv-00019-SLR Document 28 Filed O3/29/2007 Page 3 of 4
lll. Analysis
A plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of
counsel in a civil case. Tabron v. Grace, 6. F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993);
Parham v. Johnson, 126 F .3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). The court has
discretion to appoint counsel, however, only "upon a showing of special
circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [plaintiff]
resulting from [pIaintiff’s] probable inability without such assistance to present
facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguable meritorious case."
Smith—Bey v. Pefsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26(3d Cir. 1994); accord Tabron v. Grace, 6
F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).
ln the Order of March 17, 2006, the court found that there appeared to be
a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs against CMS. Therefore, at that stage, Robertson’s claims had
arguable merit.
After meeting the threshold issue, the factors delineated in Tabron to
determine whether appointment of counsel is appropriate are examined. Those
factors include, but are not limited to, the plaintiffs ability to present his own
case; the complexity of the legal issues; the extensiveness of the factual
investigation necessary to effectively litigate and the need for expert testimony.
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156-57; Parham, 126 F.3d at 457-58.
After review of plaintiffs complaint and amended complaint, his allegations
are not of such a complex nature to warrant appointment of counsel at this time.
There is no suggestion that he is being deprived of access to the law library or to
3

Case 1:06-cv-00019-SLR Document 28 Filed O3/29/2007 Page 4 of 4
a prison paralegal or a paging system by which to obtain legal documents.
Robertson filed a complaint and a very comprehensive, clear and weII—articuIated
amended complaint. Presently, it is not evident that the case will turn on
credibility determinations or on the need for expert testimony. Robertson’s
submissions indicate more than adequate ability and no substantial disability in
presenting his own case.
IV. Order
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Robertson’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (D.I. 19) is DENIED.
Date: March 29, 2007
@? o sw-mss MA F TE JUDGE
4