Shivers Jr. v. Sussex Correctional Institution et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiff's requests for counsel (D.I. 50 , 78 ) are DENIED without prejudice to renew (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/2/2019. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DWIGHT L. SHIVERS , JR. ,
: Civ. No. 17-964-RGA
CONNECTIONS , et al. ,
At Wilmington , this
JI day of Novembers 2019 , having considered Plaintiff's
renewed requests for counsel (0.1. 50 , 78) ;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs requests for counsel (0.1. 50 , 78) are DENIED
without prejudice to renew, for the reasons that follow:
Plaintiff Dwight L. Shivers , Sr. , appears pro se and was granted permission to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(0 .1. 5).
He seeks counsel
on the grounds that he is unable to afford counsel and has sought counsel on multiple
occasions to no avail , the issues are complex , he has not received responses to
discovery and was provided with medical records belonging to another inmate, his
allegations if proved would establish a constitutional violation , the discovery process is
difficult due to his incarceration , and he has no idea what to do next.
(0.1. 50 , 78).
State Defendants oppose.
A pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis has no constitutional or statutory
right to representation by counsel. 1 See Brightwell v. Lehman , 637 F.3d 187, 192 (3d
See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296 (1989)
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 to volunteer to
represent Plaintiff is warranted.
To date Plaintiff has ably represented himself. The
Court docket reflects that Plaintiff has engaged in the discovery process in both seeking
(§ 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
discovery and responding to discovery requests . In addition , the Court has given
Plaintiff additional time to respond to discovery requests. With regard to Plaintiff's
contention that he was provided medical records for another inmate, counsel for State
Defendants reviewed the medical records produced and determined they belonged to
Plaintiff despite some "marginal notes that may have been inadvertently added by
Connections' counsel. " (0 .1. 84 at 3) . In light of the foregoing , I will deny Plaintiff's
renewed requests for counsel without prejudice to renew.
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?