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

Case 1:04-cv-01329-JJF Document 14 Filed O9/13/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DWAYNE E. CROPPER, :
Plaintiff, Q
v. ; Civil Action No. 04-1329-JJF
THOMAS CARROLL, C/O POLK, i
C/O MORRISON, C/O BURNELL, :
I/M THEODORE HARRIS, and I/M :
DAVID TAYLOR, :
Defendants. E
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion For
Appointment of Counsel (D.I. 5). For the reasons discussed, the
motion will be denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center
(“DCC") in Smyrna, Delaware. Plaintiff’s SBI number is 158839.
Defendant Thomas Carroll is a warden at DCC. Defendants Polk,
Morrison, and Burnell are corrections officers at DCC.
Defendants Theodore Harris and David Taylor are inmates at DCC.
This action stems from events that occurred on August 20,
2004. On that date, Plaintiff was walking on DCC grounds when he
slipped on water and fell, injuring his back. Plaintiff filed
this action under 42 U.S.C. §l9B3, claiming that Defendants have
ignored repeated requests for proper medical treatment for his
back and have agitated the condition by placing him in handcuffs.

Case 1:04-cv-01329-JJF Document 14 Filed O9/13/2005 Page 2 of 4
II. Discussion
By his motion, Plaintiff contends that he is indigent and
requires the assistance of a court-appointed attorney.
Indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional
nor a statutory right to appointed counsel. Parham v. Johnson,
126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, district
courts have statutory authority to appoint counsel for indigent
civil litigants at any time during the litigation. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(l) (providing that "[t]he court may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel"); Montgomery v.
Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 504 (3d Cir. 2002).
Section 1915 affords district courts broad discretion in
determining whether appointment of counsel in a civil case is
appropriate. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993).
In Tabron, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit developed a list of criteria to aid district courts in
weighing whether to request an attorney to represent an indigent
civil litigant. As a threshold matter, the Court must assess
whether the claimant's case has some arguable merit in fact and
law. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. If a claimant overcomes this
initial hurdle, the Court may then consider the following non-
exhaustive list of factors:
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
2

Case 1:04-cv-01329-JJF Document 14 Filed O9/13/2005 Page 3 of 4
necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue
investigation;
4. the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his or
her 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.
When considering a request for counsel, courts must keep in
mind
[the] significant practical restraints on the district
courts' ability to appoint counsel, including the
ever-growing number of prisoner civil rights actions
filed each year in the federal courts; the lack of
funding to pay appointed counsel; and the limited
supply of competent lawyers who are willing to
undertake such representation without compensation.
Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 505 (quoting Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Keeping in mind the practical considerations cited above and
exercising the broad discretion offered the Court under Section
1915(e)(1), the Court concludes that the appointment of counsel
is not warranted at this time. Arguably, Plaintiff has a claim
for relief under 42 U.S.C. 51983. However, Plaintiff has
demonstrated an ability to present his own case by making several
filings. Additionally, while presumably lacking legal training,
Plaintiff is literate and has demonstrated some knowledge of the
legal system. Also, Plaintiff does not appear to require
assistance in factual investigation, as there is no claim of
missing records, and Plaintiff has provided the Court with copies
3

Case1:O4-cv-01329-JJF D0cument14 Filed O9/13/2005 Page40f4
of several filed grievances. Accordingly, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this fg day of
September 2005, that Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment of
Counsel (D.I. 5) is DENIED.
I
0 120 s. A 5 ¤isTRicT- u1:>c1;
I
I
{ 4