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

Case 1:04-cv—01417-GMS Document 56 Filed 09/19/2007 Page1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RICHARD C. HUNT, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. O4-1417-*** (MPT)
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL g
SERVICES, et al., )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this /?day of September, 2007, having considered plaintiffs
pending motions for appointment of counselg;
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for appointment of counsel (D.I. 27, 42)
are denied without prejudice, for the reasons that follow:
1. Plaintiff, an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center, tiled this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se, and was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. He seeks appointed counsel on the bases that certain
aspects ofthe case are beyond his understanding, he is not receiving proper medical
treatment, he needs assistance with discovery, the case is complex, he is financially
unable to afford counsel, and appointed counsel would serve the interests ofjustice.
2. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, has no constitutional
or statutory right to representation by counsel. g Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474,
477 (3d Cir. 1981); Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). The
"decision to appoint counsel may be made at any point in the litigation, and may be
made by a district court sua sponte." Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d

Case 1:04-cv—01417-Gl\/IS Document 56 Filed 09/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Cir. 2002). It is within the court's discretion to seek representation by counsel for
plaintiff, but this effort is made only "upon a showing of special circumstances indicating
the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [plaintiff] resulting. . .from [plaintiffs] 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 plaintiffs
claim has arguable merit in fact and law).
3. After passing this threshold inquiry, the court should consider a number of
factors when assessing a request for counsel, including: (1) plaintiffs 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 plaintiff to pursue
investigation; (4) plaintiffs 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. , 6 F.3d at 155-57; accord Parham,
126 F.3d at 457; l\/lontgomeg; v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d at 499.
4. In the present case, plaintiff has shown that he is able to articulate the alleged
facts clearly. The motions he has filed evidence his ability to understand and
implement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, to date, plaintiff has adequately
represented himself. Also, this is not a complex case. Finally, at this time there are no
circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel.