Fullman v. TC Electric Co.
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiff's request for counsel (D.I. 14 ) is DENIED without prejudice to renew. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/16/2018. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DARNELL H. FULLMAN , SR. ,
Plaintiff,
: Civ. No. 17-1870-RGA
V.
TC ELECTRIC CO .,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
f
At Wilmington , this /
day of October 2018 , having considered Plaintiff's
request for counsel (0 .1. 14);
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for counsel (0 .1. 14) is DENIED without
prejudice to renew, for the reasons that follow :
Plaintiff Darnell H. Fullman , Sr., appears prose and was granted permission to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (0 .1. 4).
to seek representation on his behalf.
He asks the court
(0.1. 14).
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
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.
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
"request. ").
1
1
After passing this th reshold 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 reta in 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.
The parties agree that Plaintiff was terminated in February 2016 . I do not see
anywhere factual allegations that would inform a judgment about whether Plaintiff's
claim has arguable factual merit.
Thus, I decline to request counsel after considering
the threshold issue . Alternatively, 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 compla int,
there is no indication that the case is so factually or legally complex that requesting an
attorney is warranted . In addition , so far as I can see , Plaintiff has ably represented
himself to date . Therefore , the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for counsel without
prejudice to renew. Should the need for counsel arise later, one can be sought at that
2
time.
3
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?