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

Case 1:04-cv—OO209—SLR Document 24 Filed 08/O2/2005 Page1 0f3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE l
WILLIAM F. DAVIS, III, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 04-209-SLR
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEM’S,g
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, )
WARDEN RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, and )
COMMISSIONER/DOC STAN TAYLOR, ) ,
Defendants. g ;

O R D E R §
At Wilmington this ¢}$ day of August, 2005 having N
considered plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel; {
IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 22) is denied for the i
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 (Bd Cir. 1981); Parham v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). The “decision to
appoint counsel may be made at any point in the litigation, and
may be made by a district court sua sponte.” Montgomery v.
Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002).
2. It is within the 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

Case 1:04-cv—OO209—SLR Document 24 Filed 08/O2/2005 Page 2 of 3
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 i
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). 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; 1
(4) the plaintiff's 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 at 499..
3. In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff
states that he suffers from mental disorders, including “bipolar
and depression" and is being treated with medication for the
same. (D.I. 22) As a result, he claims to be unable to
adequately pursue this litigation and must rely on the inadequate
assistance provided by “jailhouse lawyers." A review of the
various papers and pleadings filed by plaintiff, however, reflect
2

Case 1:04-cv—OO209—SLR Document 24 Filed 08/O2/2005 Page 3 of 3
his ability to coherently present his arguments. Moreover,
plaintiff’s allegations are not of such a complex nature that
representation by counsel is warranted at this time.
Uniteo Stgtes District Judge
3

Case 1:04-cv-00209-SLR

Document 24

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00209-SLR

Document 24

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00209-SLR

Document 24

Filed 08/02/2005

Page 3 of 3