VOSO v. EASTERN SALES MARKETING

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying application for Pro Bono Counsel for CHRISTIAN VOSO. Signed by Magistrate Judge James B. Clark on 10/10/13. (sr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHRISTIAN VOSO,
Plaintiff,
v.
EASTERN SALES MARKETING,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 13-2551 (FSH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court upon application by pro se Plaintiff Christian
Voso (“Plaintiff”) seeking the appointment of pro bono counsel [Docket Entry No. 3]; and
Plaintiff arguing that counsel should be appointed because he cannot afford an attorney as he is
unemployed and has sustained a reduction in unemployment compensation; and Plaintiff further
arguing that he needs assistance of counsel because he is an individual taking action against a large
corporation;
and the Court finding that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel[;]” and the Court further finding that
there is no right to counsel in a civil case (Tabron v. Grace, 6F.3d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir. 1993);
Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997)); and the Court further finding that under
Tabron 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); and the Court further finding that other factors such as
“the lack of funding to pay appointed counsel, the limited supply of competent lawyers willing to
do pro bono work, and the value of lawyers’ time” must also be considered when deciding an
application for the appointment of pro bono counsel (Jenkins v. D’Amico, Civ. Action No.
06-2027, 2006 WL 2465414, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2006) (citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157-58));
and the Court having considered Plaintiff’s application; and the Court noting that this case
is in the very early stages of litigation, and that no discovery has been conducted nor has Plaintiff’s
ability to prosecute his case been tested; and the Court further noting that while Plaintiff states his
inability to obtain an attorney, he has not provided any documentation related to his financial
status nor does the Court have any indication he has sought in forma pauperis status; and the Court
noting that even considering his inability to afford counsel, it is only a single factor for
consideration; and the Court further finding that, on balance, when the Tabron factors are
considered in conjunction with the lack of funding to pay appointed counsel, the limited supply of
competent lawyers willing to do pro bono work, and the value of lawyers’ time (see Jenkins, Civ.
Action No 06-2027, 2006 WL 2465414, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 22, 2006) (citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at
157-58), they do no warrant the appointment of counsel at this time; and the Court having
considered this matter pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 78, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 10th day of October, 2013,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/ James B. Clark, III
JAMES B. CLARK, III
United States Magistrate Judge
2