Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01417-Gl\/IS Document 15 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RICHARD C. HUNT, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. 04-1417-KAJ
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL g
SERVICES, etal. )
Defendants. )
ORDER
At V\H|mington this I gflkay of January, 2006;
IT IS ORDERED THAT;
1. Richard C. Hunt’s ("Hunt") motion for an extension of time (D.I. 9) to tile
papenivork as required by the Court's order of September 27, 2005, is GRANTED.
Hunt is given an additional ten days to submit the required forms.
2. Hunt’s second application to proceed without payment of fees and
affidavit (D.l. 10) is DENIED as moot. The Court previously granted Hunt leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on November 9, 2004. See D.l. 4.
3. Hunt’s motion for appointment of counsel (D.l. 12) is DENIED without
prejudice to renew. Hunt ,a pro se Iitigant proceeding in forma pauperis, has no
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. See Ray Robinson, 640 F.2d 474,
477 (3d Cir. 1981). It is within this couit’s discretion to appoint Hunt an attorney, but
only "upon a showing of special circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial
prejudice to [plaintiff] resulting from [plaintiffs] probable inability without such
assistance to present the facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably

Case 1 :04-cv—01417-GIVIS Document 15 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
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 may be
appropriate under certain circumstances, after a finding that a pIaintifFs claim has
arguable merit in fact and law). Having reviewed Hunt's complaint, I Hnd that his
allegations are not of such a complex nature to warrant representation by counsel at
this time.
ited States Distw ge
2