DEMBY v. CITY OF CAMDEN et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/9/2021. (tf, n.m.)
Case 1:20-cv-13893-NLH-AMD Document 16 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 72
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMOR J. DEMBY,
CITY OF CAMDEN and
COUNTY OF CAMDEN,
Jamor J. Demby
East Jersey State Prison
Lock Bag R
Rahway, NJ 07065
Plaintiff pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff, Jamor J. Demby, is an inmate presently
incarcerated in East Jersey State Prison, New Jersey.
has brought a claim pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding
his allegations that he was shot in the left elbow and left hip
in Camden, New Jersey on June 15, 2004, and the City of Camden
and the County of Camden failed to protect him.
(Docket No. 1.)
Plaintiff originally sought to bring his action without
prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP” application)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
On October 6, 2020, this
Court directed the Clerk to administratively terminate the
Case 1:20-cv-13893-NLH-AMD Document 16 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 73
action because Plaintiff’s application was incomplete as he
failed to provide a certified account statement covering the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Local Civil Rule 54.3.
The Court also directed the Clerk to mail Plaintiff another IFP
application to complete if he could not pre-pay the filing fee.
In that same Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel, instructing that the denial was without
prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile his motion should his
action be reopened.
(Docket No. 3, 4.)
Since that time, Plaintiff resubmitted his IFP, filed a
second motion to appoint pro bono counsel, which is currently
pending, filed an amended complaint, and attempted to pay the
full filing fee, but it was returned by the Clerk’s office
because it was not the proper amount.
On August 4, 2021,
Plaintiff submitted the full filing fee.
On August 11, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a request that his case be reopened.
Because Plaintiff has paid the proper filing fee, the Clerk
shall be directed to reopen the action and file Plaintiff’s
original complaint (Docket No. 1) and Plaintiff’s amended
complaint (Docket No. 9), which is now the operative pleading.
As for Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of pro bono
counsel, the Court must again deny that motion.
In addition to
Plaintiff having not been granted IFP status, which is a
Case 1:20-cv-13893-NLH-AMD Document 16 Filed 09/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 74
significant consideration in determining whether counsel should
be appointed to a litigant, Plaintiff’s motion fails to address
the relevant factors that the Court must consider in deciding
such an application. 1
The denial of Plaintiff’s motion will be
Plaintiff shall proceed with the prosecution of his case in
accordance with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)
(explaining that pro se litigants are not excused from following
the procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation).
appropriate Order will be entered.
Date: September 9, 2021
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
There is no right to counsel in a civil case, see Tabron v.
Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir. 1993); Parham v. Johnson, 126
F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997), but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel.” In deciding whether
counsel should be appointed, the Court first considers whether a
claim or defense has “arguable merit in fact and law,” and, if
it does, the Court then considers additional factors, which
include: (1) the applicant’s ability to present his or her case;
(2) the complexity of the legal issues presented; (3) the degree
to which factual investigation is required and the ability of
the applicant to pursue such investigation; (4) whether
credibility determinations will play a significant role in the
resolution of the applicant’s claims; (5) whether the case will
require testimony from expert witnesses; and (6) whether the
applicant can afford counsel on his or her own behalf. Tabron,
6 F.3d at 155-157.
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?