Giles v. Clark et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion to Appoint Counsel (D.I. 37 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/11/2018. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WARDELL LEROY GILES,
: Civ. No. 16-1038-RGA
CORPORAL CLARK, et al.,
At Wilmington, this
day of April 2018, having considered Plaintiff's
request for counsel (D.I. 37);
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for counsel is denied without prejudice to
renew (D.I. 37), for the following reasons:
Plaintiff Wardell Leroy Giles, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center in Smyrna, 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. 10).
Plaintiff seeks counsel to assist him in obtaining discovery and with depositions
that are audio recorded.
(D.I. 37). A prose litigant proceeding in forma pauperis has
no constitutional or statutory right to representation by counsel. 1 See Brightwell v.
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
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
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.
addition, Plaintiff has ably represented himself to date. Therefore, the Court will deny
Plaintiff's request for counsel without prejudice to renew.
arise later, one can be sought at that time.
Should the need for counsel
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?