Martin v. Cordrey et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying without prejudice to renew 25 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 12/27/2017. (fms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BOOKER T. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,

v.

: Civ. No. 16-600-LPS

DETETIVE BRADLEY CORDREY, et al.,
Defendants.
* tMtMORANDUM

ORDER

At Wilmington, this ~/day of December, 2017, having considered Plaintiffs request for
counsel (D.I. 25);
IT IS ORDERED that the request for counsel (D.l. 25) is DENIED without prejudice to
renew, for the reasons that follow:
Plaintiff Booker T. Martin ("Plaintiff'), a former inmate at the Sussex Correctional Center in
Georgetown, Delaware, filed this ~ction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appears pro se and has
been granted leave to proceed infarma pairperis. (D.I. 5, 33)
Plaintiff seeks counsel on the grounds that the issues are complex, he is indigent, and
ignorant of the law. A pro se litigant proceeding in farma pauperis has no constitutional or statutory
right to representation by counsel. 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 plaintiffs claim has arguable merit in fact and law.

Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155; see also ~a/lard v. United States Dist. Court far 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 "request.").
1

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.
Assuming, solely for the purpose of deciding this motion, that Plaintiff's claims have merit in
fact and law, several of the Tabron factors militate against granting his request for counsel. After
reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, the Court concludes that the case is not so factually or legally
complex that requesting an attorney is warranted. To date, Plaintiff has shown the ability in to
represent himself in this case. In light of the foregoing, the Court will deny without prejudice to
renew Plaintiff's request for counsel. Should the need for counsel arise later, one can be sought at
that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for counsel (D.I. 25) is denied without prejudice to renew.

2