MAYORAL v. KELLY et al

Filing 18

Letter Order denying Motion for Pro Bono Counsel, Motions terminated: 17 MOTION to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel filed by RENO E. MAYORAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 4/4/2018. (byl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Chambers of

Martin Luther King Jr, Federal Bldg.
& U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07102
[phone]

STEVEN C. MANNION
United States Magistrate Judge

April 4, 2018

LETTER OPINION-ORDER

Re:

D.E. 17; Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel
Mayoral v. John F. Kelly, Secretary, Dep’t of Homeland Security, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-cv-04230 (MCA)(SCM)

Dear Litigants:
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Reno E. Mayoral’s (“Mr.
Mayoral”) Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel.1 The Court has reviewed Mr. Mayoral’s motion
and for the reasons set forth herein it is denied.
This Court denied Mr. Mayoral’s previous motion for the appointment of pro bono
counsel.2 In that denial, the Court discussed the Tabron factors, which are: (1) the plaintiff’s ability
to present his case; (2) the complexity of the legal issues involved; (3) the extent of factual
discovery and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and to comply with complex discovery rules; (4)
the extent to which the case may turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether expert testimony
will be required; and (6) whether the plaintiff can afford counsel on his or her own behalf.3
Though it noted that the Court was sympathetic to Mr. Mayoral’s disadvantages, the Court
found the factors to weigh against appointment. With respect to the first factor, the Court noted
that “lack of formal legal training alone, does not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant
appointment.”4 With respect to the second factor, the Court found that the legal issues in this case

1

(ECF Docket Entry No. (“D.E.”) 17, Pl.’s Mot.).

2

(D.E. 8, Order).

3

Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 1993).

4

(D.E. 8, Order, at 3).

were not difficult, complex, or novel.5 In fact, Mr. Mayoral states, “the ultimate legal issues are
not complex,” in his first Motion for Pro Bono Counsel.6 With respect to the third factor, the Court
noted that “nothing in the record indicates that Mr. Mayoral’s pro se status inhibits him from
conducting discovery.”7 With respect to the fourth factor, the Court explained that based on the
initial pleadings, this case does not appear to be a swearing match, therefore it is not likely to turn
on credibility determination.8
Mr. Mayoral’s present motion addresses only the first, fifth, and sixth factors. As to the
first factor, the difficulty of the legal issues is not overly complex and a lack of legal education
alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for appointment of counsel.9 Mr. Mayoral lists a
number of situations with which he may have difficulty without legal knowledge, none of which
demonstrate an inability to present his case under Tabron.10 The Court also noted that the fifth
factor weighed against Mr. Mayoral because the case did not seem to depend on expert testimony
but rather, given the allegations, the facts deduced.11 Vague allegation as to requiring some kind
of expert witness are not sufficient for appointment of counsel. 12 As to the sixth factor, he points
to financial strain relating to his head-of-household status and ailing wife.13 General familial
difficulties, however, do not sufficiently indicate an inability to afford counsel.
As the Tabron factors continue to weigh against appointment at this time, Mr. Mayoral’s
motion is denied.

5

Id.

6

(D.E. 7, Pl.’s Mot., at 3).

7

(D.E. 8, Order, at 4).

8

Id.

9

Id. at 3.

10

(D.E. 17, Pl.’s Mot., at 3).

11

Id.

12

(D.E. 8, Order, at 4).

13

Id. at 5.
2

IT SO ORDERED.

4/4/2018 6:04:30 PM

Original: Clerk of the Court
Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.D.J.
cc: All parties

3