Adkins et al v. Reynolds et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiff's request for counsel (D.I. 90 ) is DENIED without prejudice (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/18/2020. (nms)

Case 1:15-cv-00882-RGA Document 106 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1115

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TYRONE M. ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE DALLAS REYNOLDS,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
: Civ. No. 15-882-RGA
:
:
:
:
:

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this 18th day of December 2020, having considered Plaintiff=s
request for counsel (D.I. 90);
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for counsel (D.I. 90) is DENIED without
prejudice, for the reasons that follow:
Plaintiff Tyrone M. Adkins, an inmate at the Sussex Correctional Institution in
Georgetown, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 1). He
appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 6).
Plaintiff seeks counsel for the limited purpose to assist him in answering or
objecting to Defendants’ interrogatories. (D.I. 90). A pro se litigant proceeding in
forma pauperis has no constitutional or statutory right to representation by counsel. 1

See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989)
(§ 1915(d) (now § 1915(e)(1)) does not authorize a federal court to require an unwilling
attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant, the operative word in the statute being
1

1

Case 1:15-cv-00882-RGA Document 106 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1116

See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 2011); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). However, representation by counsel may be appropriate
under certain circumstances, after a finding that a plaintiff=s claim has arguable merit in
fact and law. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155.
After passing this threshold inquiry, the Court should consider a number of
factors when assessing a request for counsel. Factors to be considered by a court in
deciding whether to request a lawyer to represent an indigent plaintiff include: (1) the
merits of the plaintiff=s claim; (2) the plaintiff=s ability to present his or her case
considering his or her education, literacy, experience, and the restraints placed upon
him or her by incarceration; (3) the complexity of the legal issues; (4) the degree to
which factual investigation is required and the plaintiff=s ability to pursue such
investigation; (5) the plaintiff=s capacity to retain counsel on his or her own behalf; and
(6) the degree to which the case turns on credibility determinations or expert testimony.
See Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498-99 (3d Cir. 2002); Tabron, 6 F.3d at
155-56. The list is not exhaustive, nor is any one factor determinative. Tabron, 6 F.3d
at 157.
I have reviewed the docket in this case as well as Plaintiff’s filings. Throughout,
Plaintiff has ably represented himself in this matter. He has propounded discovery and
responded to discovery requests. Upon consideration of the entire record, I have
concluded that counsel is not necessary solely for the purpose of answering or objecting
to interrogatories. In addition, if there is a discovery disagreement, the parties have the

“request.”).
2

Case 1:15-cv-00882-RGA Document 106 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1117

option of filing a motion with the Court to resolve any discovery dispute. Therefore, the
Court will deny Plaintiff=s request for counsel without prejudice.

/s/ Richard G. Andrews
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3