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

Case 1:05-cv—OOO15—SLR Document 25 Filed 08/O2/2005 Page1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
STEPHANIE F. HAYGOOD, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ; Civ. No. 05-015-SLR
BARRY CONNORS and LINDA HARE Q
Tucxsn, )
Defendants. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington thistéd day of August, 2005;
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for representation by
counsel is denied without prejudice to renew, Plaintiff, a pro
se litigant, has no constitutional or statutory right to
representation by counsel. Sgg Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474,
477 (3d 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 (Bd Cir.
2002).
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
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

Case 1:05-cv—OOO15—SLR Document 25 Filed 08/O2/2005 Page 2 of 2
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;
(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. The court does not find
any special circumstances, nor does plaintiff assert any, that
warrant referral for representation.
United Statgg District Judge
2