RAMSEY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Filing
9
OPINION & ORDER that Plaintiff's application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. re 7 Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge James B. Clark on 10/25/16. (cm )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAYMOND RAMSEY,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 15-8532 (JMV)
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter having been opened to the Court upon application by pro se Plaintiff
Raymond Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) seeking the appointment of pro bono counsel [Docket Entry No.
1]; and Plaintiff arguing that counsel should be appointed because he is “not skilled with the
law” and has limited resources;
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, 6 F.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
1
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 argues “limited resources”, 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), Plaintiff’s limited skill in the law or “limited resources” 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,
2
IT IS on this 25th day of October, 2016,
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
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?