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

Case 1:04-cv—01383—SLR Document 23 Filed 07/19/2005 Page1 0f3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GERRON MAURICE LINDSEY, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. No. 04-1383-SLR
LT. Rispoti, c/o MooRs, c/o )
VICTOR GONZALEZ, SGT. )
CARPENTER, c/o MANNo, c/o )
TERRY, NURSE HOLLY, and NURSE )
BRENDA, J
DefendantS. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this }%¤day of July, 2005,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for representation by
counsel is denied without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff, a pro
se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, has no constitutional
or statutory right to representation by counsel. See 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 Cir. 2002).
It is within the court's discretion, however, 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 [plaintiff's] probable inability without such

Case 1:04-cv—01383—SLR Document 23 Filed 07/19/2005 Page 2 of 3
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 (Bd Cir, 1993)(representation by counsel may be
appropriate under certain circumstances, after a finding that a
p1aintiff’s claim has arguable merit in fact and law). After
passing this threshold inquiry, the court should consider a
number of factors when assessing a request for counsel,
including;
(1) the plaintiff’s 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 the plaintiff to pursue investigation;
(4) the 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 from
expert witnesses.
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57; accord Parham, 126 F.3d at 457;
Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d at 499.
In the case at bar, plaintiff, an inmate at Delaware
Correctional Center, alleges that he was mistreated by defendants
while on suicide watch. The plaintiff has shown that he is
capable of recounting the alleged events and highlighting those
facts that present legal issues. Most likely an investigation
into the alleged invents and the record can be developed through
the discovery process, i.e., admissions and interrogatories,
without the aid of legal counsel. In addition, it is unlikely
2

Case 1:04-cv—01383—SLR Document 23 Filed 07/19/2005 Page 3 of 3
that plaintiff's claims will require expert testimony.
Therefore, at this time the court does not think that plaintiff’s
claims present special circumstances or complicated legal issues
that require representation by counsel.
United Staégs District Judge
3