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

Case 1:07-cv-00505-SLR Document 9 Filed 11/28/2007 Page1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE `
KEVIN A. APGAR, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-505-***-LPS
WARDEN RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, )
DR. BINNON, and JAMES WELCH, )
Defendants. g
ORDER
At Wilmington thi Xday of November, 2007, having considered plaintiffs
pending motion for appointment of counsel;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 7) is denied without prejudice for the
following reasons:
1. 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). It is within the
court’s discretion to seek representation by counsel for plaintiff, and 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); acgg
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).

Case 1:07-cv-00505-SLR Document 9 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 2
2. After passing this threshold inquiry, the court should consider a number of
factors when assessing a request for counsel, including:
(1) the 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 the plaintiff to pursue investigation; (4) the 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.
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 motion for appointment of counsel plaintiff states that he is unable to
afford counsel, the issues in his case are very complex, he has limited access to the
law library, limited knowledge of the law, and he does not have a high school education.
4. ln reviewing plaintiff’s filings, it appears that plaintiff possesses the ability to
adequately pursue his claim. Moreover, this case is in its very early stages and
discovery has not yet commenced. Upon consideration of the record, the court is not
persuaded that appointment of counsel is warranted at this time.
ja-li fg
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00505-SLR

Document 9

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00505-SLR

Document 9

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 2 of 2