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

Case 1:04-cv—01554—SLR Document 14 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RENEE w. BYRD, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ) Civ. No. 04-1554-SLR
MAY DEPARTMENT STORES, CO., g
Defendant. ;
O R D E R .
I At Wilmington this 31st day of August, 2005, having
considered plaintiff's letter request for appointment of counsel;
IT IS ORDERED that said request (D.I. 13) is denied for the
reasons that follow; X
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, 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 P.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).
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 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 her request for counsel, plaintiff states that she
does not understand how to respond to the requests made by
defense counsel and that she has been unable to find
representation of counsel. (D.I. 13) Having reviewed
¤'
plaintiff’s letter as well as the record, the court does not find §
that appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. 2
Specifically, plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to coherently S
present her claims and requests for relief. Q
United States§%istrict Judge i
2 .