Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01417-GMS Document 32 Filed 01/09/2007 Paget of3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RICHARD C. HUNT, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 04-1417-*** (MPT)
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, g
SERVICES, et al., )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Plaintiff, Richard C. Hunt ("Hunt"), an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institute ("H.R.Y.C.|."), is a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis.
He recently filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Docket Item [D.|.] 12.) For the reasons
contained herein, Hunt’s motion is denied.
Hunt filed his complaint alleging that defendant First Correctional Medical
Services ("FCMS") "was neglagent (sic) in their duty to assist Plaintiff in proper care in a
timely manner, due to assault by a C/O EMlG." (D.l. 2 at 3.) On November 28, 2004,
Hunt filed a motion to amend his original complaint, attempting to "better clarify the
issues." (D.I. 6) Hunt’s motion to amend was granted. (D.l. 7.) In its Memorandum
Order of September 27, 2005, the allegations contained in the November 28 motion
were considered in deciding whether Hunt’s claim was not frivolous.
In the November 28, filing, Hunt more specifically alleges violations of his
Constitutional rights by FCMS. Hunt alleges that on September 17, 2004, his jaw was
broken, and that he notified medical staff of that injury the following day through "sick
ca|l" forms. (D.l. 6 at 2.) According to Hunt, his jaw was X-rayed on September 20, and

Case 1:04-cv—01417-Gl\/IS Document 32 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
it was confirmed that the jaw was, in fact, broken. (Id.) However, Hunt was not taken to
Christiana Hospital for treatment until October 18, 2004, and "didn’t receive any
treatment until Oct. 20.04." (ld.) Hunt claims that these facts show that FCIVIS was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. (Id.)
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). Yet, a court in its discretion may appoint counsel. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In particular, appointment may be appropriate "up0n a showing of
special circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice" to the
unrepresented party. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 154 (quoting Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d
22 (3d Cir. 1984). Before a court utilizes this discretion, though, it must first determine
whether the plaintiffs claim has some arguable merit in fact and law. ld. At 155. In a
previous order, the court found that Hunt raised what appear to be cognizable Eighth
Amendment claims against defendants,. (D.l. 7 at 5-6) Thus, Hunt’s claims have
arguable merit.
Having met this threshold issue, the factors delineated in Tabron to determine
whether appointment of counsel is appropriate are examined. The non-exhaustive list
of factors to consider are: (1) the plaintiffs ability to present his own case; (2) the
complexity ofthe legal issues; (3) the extensiveness of the factual investigation
necessary to effectively Iitigate the case and plaintiffs ability to pursue an investigation;
(4) the degree to which the case may turn on credibility determinations; (5) whetherthe
testimony of expert witnesses will be necessary; and (6) whether the plaintiff can attain
2

Case 1:04-cv—O1417-Gl\/IS Document 32 Filed O1/O9/2007 Page 3 of 3
and afford counsel on his own behalf. Id. at 156-57; Parham, 126 F.3d at 457-58.
There are presently no circumstances in this case that make it appropriate for
this Court to appoint counsel for Hunt at this time. Thus far, Hunt has done an
adequate job in presenting his case. He filed a comprehensive complaint and
subsequent motions with the court. Moreover, the allegations or legal issues are not
sufficiently complex to warrant appointment of counsel.
Although Hunt argues that his ability to adequately represent himself is limited for
various reasons,1 his pleadings to date belie this argument. His submissions to date
indicate more than adequate ability and no substantial disability in presenting his own
case.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Hunt’s motion to appoint counsel (D.l. 12) is DENIED without prejudice with
leave to refile.

January 9, 2007
Wilmington, Delaware
‘Hunt claims that he cannot adequately represent himself because he is
incarcerated, unskilled in the law, is limited in his access to the law library, that counsel
is needed for effective examination and cross-examination, and that his attempts to
obtain private counsel have been to no avail.
3