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

Case 1:07-cv-00476-GMS

Document 33

Filed 04/24/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PAUL SMITH, Pro Se Plaintiff, v. CARL DANBERG, et al., Defendants, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 07-476 GMS

ORDER At Wilmington this 24th day of April, 2008; IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (D.I. 10, 22) are denied without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. See Ray Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477 (3d Cir. 1981). It is within this 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 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).

Case 1:07-cv-00476-GMS

Document 33

Filed 04/24/2008

Page 2 of 2

Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the court finds that his allegations are not of such a complex nature that representation by counsel is warranted at this time. The various papers and pleadings submitted by plaintiff reflect an ability to coherently present his arguments.

/s/ Gregory M. Sleet CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2