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

Case 1 :07-cv—00448-GIVIS Document 46 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C()URT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RUSSELL STEEDLEY, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-448-GMS
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL l
SERVICES, GAIL ELLER, JOHN )
RUNDLE, SCOTT ALTMAN, and )
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL )
SERVICES REGIONAL, )
Defendants. l
ORDER
(*1
At Wilmington this /0 day of M07 , 2008, having considered the plaintiffs
pending motion for appointment of counsel;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 40) 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 cotmsel for plaintiff, and 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

Case 1:07-cv—00448-G|\/IS Document 46 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 2 of 2
may be appropriate under certain circtunstances, 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 tum on credibility determinations; and
(6) whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses.
Tabran, 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 unable to afford
counsel, expert testimony may be required, he is an incarcerated individual, he is currently
hospitalized with no access to legal materials, and he does not have the ability to adequately
conduct discovery.
4. In reviewing the plaintiffs filings, it appears that the 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. 7//
CHI , UNI D STATES T GE
F I L E D
-2- MAY l 6 2008
u.s. msmlcr coun
Distmct OF DELAWLRE