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

Case 1 :04-cv-01328-GIVIS Document 40 Filed 05/30/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F OR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES HALL, )
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1328 GMS
DAVID HOLMAN, LAWRENCE, )
MCGUIGAN, and DEPUTY WARDEN )
CLYDE D. SAGERS, )
Defendants. )
ORDER
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2004, James Hall ("Hall") filed this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §l983, against David Holman ("Holman"), Security Superintendent, Lawrence
McGugan [sic] (“McGugan"), Deputy Warden, and Clyde D. Sagers ("Sagers"), acting Deputy
Warden (collectively, the "defendants");
WHEREAS, the complaint alleges that the defendants placed him in a cell with a violent
inmate for over three months, thereby failing to protect him from an assault, and violating his Eighth
Amendment rights;
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2005, Hall filed a motion for appointment of counsel (D.I. l5);
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2006, the court issued a Memorandum and Order (D.I. 24)
denying Hall’s motion, but allowing him to renew the motion if the appointment of counsel became
necessary at some later point in the ligation;
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, Hall filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel
(D.I. 29);

Case 1:04-cv—01328-G|\/IS Document 40 Filed 05/30/2006 Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2006, the defendants’ filed a letter, opposing Hall’s motion for
appointment of counsel;
WHEREAS, the letter asserts that none of the circumstances of Hall’s case have changed
since the court issued its November 29, 2006 Order;
WHEREAS, the court finds that the renewed motion does not state any facts that are new or
different from those stated in the original motion; and
WHEREAS, after having considered the motion, as well as the pertinent case law, the court
concludes that the majority of factors it must balance, when making a detemiination to appoint
counsel in a civil case, still weigh against Hall’s need for the appointment of counsel at this stage
of the litigation process';
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The plaintiffs renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel (D.I. 29) is DENIED without
prejudice.
Dated: May , 2006 _ ·
DST TES DISTRI TIUDGE
I See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457-58 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 155-56, 157 n.5 (3d Cir. 1993) (setting forth illustrative list of factors that courts should
consider when making a determination whether to appoint counsel, including: (1) the plaintiff’s
ability to present his own case; (2) the complexity of the legal issues; (3) the extensiveness of the
factual investigation necessary to effectively liti gate the case and the plaintiffs ability to pursue
such an investigation; (4) the degree to which the case may tum on credibility determinations; (5)
whether the testimony of expert witnesses will be necessary; and (6) whether the plaintiff can
attain and afford counsel on his own behalf).
2