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

N o ri ‘ " I - C ''` A T *···
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JEFFERY ALONZO SIMMS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 04-1205-SLR
M.D. HARRY M. FREEMAN, )
DR. DONNA BURNS and MAJOR ) ·
R.L. HUGHES, ) %
Defendants. g )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this !$+~ day of August, 2005, having %
considered plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel; V
IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 36) is denied for ;
the reasons that follow:‘ q
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.
I
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). The “decision to Q
appoint counsel may be made at any point in the litigation, and may A
be made by a district court sua sponte.” Montgomery v. Pinchak, "
294 P.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002). `
2. It is within the court’s discretion, however, to 3
seek representation by counsel for plaintiff, but this
effort is made only‘ “upon a showing of special circumstances E

'Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis I
{D.I. 37) is denied as moot. Q
A

Case 1:04-cv—01205—SLR Document 39 Filed 08/18/2005 Page 2 of 2
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
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 plaintiff’s clainnhas
arguable merit in fact and law). 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; Montgom-
ery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d at 499.
3. Having reviewed plaintiff's papers in light of the i
)
authority outlined above, the court does not find plaintiff’s 3
allegations of such a complex nature that representation by counsel l
is warranted at this time. l
United Stateg;District Judge 5
)
2 E