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

Case 1:04-cv—00177-SLR Document 45 Filed 05/01/2006 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
’ EDWARD J. TAYLOR, JR., )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. No. 04-0177-SLR
CIVIGENICS INC., )
Defendant. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this lst day of May, 2006, having
considered plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel;
IT IS ORDERED that said requests (D.I. 30, 38) are denied
for the reasons that follow:
1. 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 (Bd Cir. 1981); Parham v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). 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 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

Case 1:04-cv—00177-SLR Document 45 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
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 plaintiff's claim has
arguable merit in fact and law).
2. 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 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002).
3. In his first motion for appointment of counsel,
plaintiff avers that he needs an attorney to make sure his
“rights are Dot violated any more then (sic) they have been."
(D.I. 30) Plaintiff, in his second motion, states that this
litigation is becoming too complicated and he is not afforded
sufficient time in the law library for research and writing.
(D.1. 38) Having reviewed plaintiff's motions as well as the
record, the court does not find that appointment of counsel is
warranted at this time. Specifically, plaintiff has demonstrated
2

Case 1:04-cv-00177-SLR Document 45 Filed 05/O1/2006 Page 3 of 3
an ability t0 ceherently present his claims and requests for
relief.
United Statés District Judge
3

Case 1:04-cv-00177-SLR

Document 45

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00177-SLR

Document 45

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00177-SLR

Document 45

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 3 of 3