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

Case 1 :04-cv-01542-GIVIS Document 76 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KEVIN BRATHWAITE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
DAVID K. HOLMAN, ANTHONY )
J. RENDINA, CATHY MALAY, LARRY )
SAVAGE, MARCELLO RISPOLI, ) Civil Action No. 04-1542 (GMS)
ROBERT WALLACE, )
MATT STEVENSON, STEPHANIE )
CARPENTER, BARBI THOMAS, EDWIN )
NKWOPARA, LISE MERSON, V. DUNN, )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this5`H\ day of June, 2006;
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (D.I. 64) is denied
without prejudice to renew. The plaintiff, a pro se litigant proceeding informa pauperis, has no
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. See Parham v. Johnson, 126
F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir. 1993). It is within
this court’s discretion, however, to seek representation by counsel for the plaintiff, but this effort is
made only "upon a showing of special circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial
prejudice to [the plaintiff] resulting from [the plaintiffs] probable inability without such assistance
to present the facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case."
T abron, 6 F .3d at 155 (representation by counsel may be appropriate under certain circumstances,
after a finding that a plaintiffs claim has arguable merit in fact and law).

Case 1 :04-cv—01542-GIVIS Document 76 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
Having reviewed the plaintiff" s remaining claims, 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 the plaintiff reflect an ability to coherently present his arguments.
UNI STXTES DiSTR1fg REG? )
2