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

Case 1 :07-cv—00477-GIVIS Document 29 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PAUL J. SMITH, )
Plaintiff, g
v. j Civil Action No. 07-477-GMS
REGIONAL MEDICAL FIRST g
CORRECTIONAL and THOMAS )
CARROLL, )
Defendants. g
ORDER
M
At Wilmington this lé day of M/*7 , 2008, having considered the plaintiffs pending
motion for appointment of counsel;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 19) 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. See 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 hplaintifi] 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
Cir. 1984); accord Tahron 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).

Case 1:07-cv—00477-G|\/IS Document 29 Filed 05/16/2008 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 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 :1
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, the plaintiff states that he is "at a disability
state of not being fully capable of performing all functions" and he needs "civil actions to protect
[his] private civil right[s]." 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.
CHI , UNlii ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
i F I l.- E D
i [ MAY 16 2008 I
us. oismicr coum
t-...-.'2l§IEl-9-ISF DELAWARE
-2-