Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00541-JJF Document 11 Filed 04/29/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KENZA L. STARLING, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. Z Civ. Action No. 07-541-JJF
POSTMASTER GENERAL JOHN E. ;
POTTER, :
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requested For
Counsel. (D.I. 9.) For the reasons discussed, the Motion will be
denied without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kenza L. Starling appears prg sg. She filed this
lawsuit alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5. (D.I.
2. >
Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel. She states that she
requires counsel now that she has reached the stage of the case
wherein she filed civil litigation. Plaintiff states that she
has no knowledge of the law and is financially unable to retain
counsel. The Court notes that Plaintiff paid the $350.00 filing
fee.
II. DISCUSSION
Indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional
nor a statutory right to appointed counsel. Parham v. Johnson,

Case 1 :07-cv-00541 -JJF Document 11 Filed O4/29/2008 Page 2 of 3
126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, district
courts have statutory authority to appoint counsel for indigent
civil litigants at any time during the litigation. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) (providing that “[t]he court may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel"); Montgomery v.
Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 504 (3d Cir. 2002). Section 1915(e)(1)
affords district courts broad discretion in determining whether
appointment of counsel in a civil case is appropriate. Tabron v.
Qragg, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993).
When evaluating a motion for the appointment of counsel
filed by a prg gg plaintiff, initially, the Court must examine
the merits of Plaintiff's claim to determine whether it has some
arguable merit in fact and law. ggg Parham, 126 F.3d at 457
(citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157). If the case has arguable merit
in law and fact the Court should proceed to consider (1)
Plaintiff's ability to present 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) Plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel
on her own behalf; (5) the extent to which a case is likely to
turn on credibility determinations; and (6) whether the case will
require testimony of expert witnesses. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at
499 (citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-56, 157 n.5). The list of
factors is not exhaustive.
- 2 -

Case 1 :07-cv-00541-JJF Document 11 Filed O4/29/2008 Page 3 of 3
The Court assumes solely for the purpose of deciding the
pending Motion, that Plaintiff’s claims have arguable merit, and
will, therefore, consider the factors articulated in Parham and
Tabron. Keeping in mind the practical considerations cited above
and exercising the broad discretion offered the Court, the Court
concludes that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at
this time. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff was not
granted indigent status and she has paid her filing fee.
Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice, Plaintiff’s
Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Requested
For Counsel (D.I. 9) is DENIED without prejudice.
YQQQIQK %;;ZgiF%? @Q
DAT UNI E STA E ISTRICT GE
.. 3 -

Case 1:07-cv-00541-JJF

Document 11

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00541-JJF

Document 11

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00541-JJF

Document 11

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 3 of 3