HALEY v. THE KINTOCK GROUP et al

Filing 23

Memoradum Opinion and Order denying application for Pro Bono Counsel. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 5/29/12. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CLARENCE HALEY,
Civ. No. 2:11-cv-05606 (WJM)

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

THE KINTOCK GROUP, et al.,
Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Clarence Haley’s
motion for appointment of pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). For the
reasons stated below, the application is denied.
The Complaint alleges the following facts. Haley is a state parolee who was
released on parole to a halfway back program called the Stages to Enhance Parolee
Success (“STEPS”). In his first two months at STEPS, Haley submitted complaints
regarding two issues. First, he submitted a complaint that the kitchen staff provided him
with an inadequate meal. Second, he submitted a complaint stating that the STEPS staff
withheld or destroyed his medical records from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections. Haley alleges that, in retaliation for submitting these complaints, the STEPS
staff required him to undergo an evaluation by a psychiatrist, who “secretly [wrote] a
false and negative ‘psychological evaluation report.’” Compl. ¶ 75 (emphasis in
original). Haley alleges that, as a result of this fraudulent report, he was discharged from
the STEPS program for medical reasons and was eventually returned to a New Jersey
state prison.
Haley filed this action on September 28, 2011. He filed an application for pro
bono counsel on March 6, 2012.
Section 1915(e)(1) provides that a “court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). District courts have “broad
discretion” to decide whether requesting counsel is appropriate, and may request counsel
sua sponte at any point in the litigation. Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d
Cir. 2002) (citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993)). In Tabron, the Third
Circuit instructed that, in exercising its discretion to appoint counsel, district courts must
first assess whether a given case has merit, and then weigh specific factors, including (1)
the plaintiff’s ability to present his or her own case; (2) the difficulty of the particular

1

legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the ability
of the plaintiff to pursue that investigation; (4) the plaintiff’s capacity to retain counsel on
his or her own behalf; (5) the extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility
determinations; and (6) whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses.
Tabron, 6 F.3d. at 155-57. The list is non-exhaustive, and the Court may consider other
facts or factors it determines are important or helpful. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499.
In this case, the Court finds that appointment of pro bono counsel is not warranted
for three reasons. First, it is unlikely that the case has merit. Haley has filed at least ten
(10) civil rights lawsuits in the District of New Jersey, the majority of which have
contained allegations that state officials tampered with his food or his medical and legal
documents. All of these cases were dismissed. See e.g., Haley v. Morton, Docket No.
95-0044 (D.N.J.) (dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment and affirmed on
appeal); Haley v. Fauver, Docket No. 97-5711 (D.N.J.) (stayed by the trial court and
dismissed on appeal); Haley v. Mee, Docket No. 99-1820 (D.N.J.) (dismissed by the trial
court as frivolous during initial screening and affirmed on appeal); Haley v. Andrews,
Docket No. 99-4644 (D.N.J.) (dismissed by the trial court; appeal dismissed); Haley v.
Correctional Behavioral Solutions, et al., Docket No. 02-5350 (dismissed by the trial
court; summarily affirmed on appeal). Because the Complaint filed in this case does not
appear to differ substantially from Haley’s previous complaints, the Court finds that it is
likely that this case also lacks merit.
Second, there is no evidence that Haley would be unable to present his own case.
A review of the dockets of the federal cases alone indicates that Haley regularly and
consistently submits motions, responds to his adversaries, and actively participates in
these litigations. Indeed, he has been very active in prosecuting the present action since
its initiation.
Finally, the Court is familiar with Section 1983 actions, and the claims in this case
appear to be fairly straightforward. As such, the case does not appear to require that
Haley be guided by counsel.
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 29th day of May 2012, hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for pro bono counsel is DENIED.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

2