KITCHEN v. ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
Filing
9
LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 7/16/2012. (nr, )
LETTER OPINION
Ju1y/ 2012
Arthur Kitchen #541049/916939A
Mid-State Correctional Facility
P0 Box 866
Wrightstown, NJ 08562
Jeffrey S. Chiesa
New Jersey Attorney General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 080
Trenton, NJ 08625
Re:
Arthur Kitchen v. Essex County Correctional Facility
Civil Action No. 12-2 199 (JLL)
Dear Parties:
Petitioner Arthur Kitchen (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner filing p Sc, commenced
this
action on April 12, 2012, by submitting a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983.
§
[Docket Entry No. 1]. Petitioner’s filing asserts that, on January 21, 2012, he was knocke
d
unconscious and assaulted without provocation by officers at the Essex County Correc
tional
Facility. (Compi., at 5). On June 13, 2012, Petitioner submitted an Application
for Pro Bono
Counsel in a Civil Rights Case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. l915(e)(1). [Docket Entry
No. 8].
§
Petitioner has been granted permission to proceed j forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. The Court now considers Petitioner’s application for pro bono counse
l.
Petitioner possesses no constitutional right to representation in a civil case. Parham
v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456 (3d Cir. 1997). However, a district court may reques
t an attorney to
represent a person who has been granted permission to proceed forma pauper
is in the action
j
and is unable to afford counsel.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Because pro bono time is a
precious and limited commodity, the appointment of counsel should be given
consideration only
if the claim has “some merit in fact and law.” Parham, 126 F.3d at 457. Bragg
v. Agarwal, 2009
WL 4125460, No. 09-4331 (D.N.J. November 23, 2009).
In determining whether this Court should grant Petitioner’s motion, it must
consider the
following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s ability to present his or her case based
on such factors as
education, literacy, prior work experience, prior litigation experience, the
substantive nature of
the claim, and/or the ability to understand English; (2) the complexity
of the legal issues
involved and the lawyering skills required for an effective presentation
of the claim; (3) whether
the claims are likely to require extensive discovery or compliance with comple
x discovery rules;
and (4) whether the case is likely to turn on credibility determinations or if
expert testimony is
necessary. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993)). Section 1915(e
)(1) gives district
courts broad discretion to request an attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant. Tabron, 6
F.3d at 153. If it appears that an indigent plaintiff with a claim of arguable merit is incapable of
presenting his or her own case, serious consideration should be given to appointing counsel.
14.
at 156.
Although Petitioner has established himself as indigent, or “financially eligible,” it is
apparent from Petitioner’s filings that he is able to clearly articulate his legal claims, as well
as
the facts supporting such claims. For instance, without the assistance of counsel, Petitio
ner
submitted a civil complaint and an affidavit of indigence, which exhibits a good unders
tanding of
the relevant issues and requirements under this Court’s rules. Moreover, Petitioner has not
demonstrated (a) the complexity of the legal issues at hand, or (b) the need for expert
testimony
or an evidentiary hearing at this juncture. Although Plaintiff states that he faces “signif
icant
medical issues,” he has neither stated the nature of those medical issues nor how those
medical
issues would affect his ability to represent himself at this stage. (See Application
for Pro Bono
Counsel, at 3 [Docket Entry No. 8]).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s application for appointment of
pro
bono counsel is denied without prejudice to Petitioner’s reassertion of the same should
circumstances change or Petitioner provides a clearer statement about the nature
of his medical
issues, the complexity of the legal issues at hand, and the need for enhanced assista
nce based on
a need for expert testimony or an evidentiary hearing. An appropriate Order accom
panies this
Letter Opinion.
Sincerel’
nited States District Judge
2
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?