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

Case 1 :O7—cv-00479-SLR—LPS Document 22 Filed 06/O2/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MAJ ED SUBH, :
Plaintiff,
v. C.A. No. 07-479—SLR—LPS
WAL—MART STORES EAST LP,
Defendant.
ORDER
At Wilmington this 2nd day of June, 2008,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel (D.I. 19) is denied without prejudice. A
pro se litigant has no constitutional or statutory right to representation by counsel. S;
Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477 (3d Cir. 1981); Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir.
1997). It is within the court’s discretion to seek representation by counsel for plaintiff, and this
effort is made 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 meritorious
case." Smith—Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984); gag 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 claim has arguable merit in fact and law).
2. After passing this threshold inquiry, the court should consider a number of factors
when assessing a request for counsel, including:

Case 1:O7—cv-00479-SLR—LPS Document 22 Filed 06/O2/2008 Page 2 of 2
(l) the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 l55—57; accord Parham, 126 F .3d at 457; Montgomegg v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d
492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002).
3. Plaintiff moves for appointed counsel on the bases that he is unskilled in the law and
that his very recent attempts to secure legal representation on his own have been unsuccessful.
4. Although initiated on August 2, 2007, this case nonetheless is still in its early stages.
Upon Plaintiffs recent requests for additional time to retain counsel and respond to outstanding
discovery requests as well as for postponement of his deposition (D.I. 15, 16), the Court amended
the scheduling order in place and extended the discovery and other deadlines in this case (D.I.
18). Moreover, the facts of this case are fairly straightforward. Upon consideration of the
record, the Court is not persuaded that appointment of counsel by the Court is warranted at this
time. Further motions for appointment of counsel shall be deemed denied without prejudice to
renew should any of Plaintiff s claim survive summary judgment.
5. This Court’s May 13, 2008 Order (D.I. 18) shall continue to govern in all other
respects.
UNITED S ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2