HOHSFIELD v. TOWNSHIP OF MANCHESTER et al
Filing
28
OPINION & ORDER Denying Plaintiffs application for Pro Bono Counsel. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 12/5/2011. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
David HOHSFIELD,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 09-5377
v.
OPINION and ORDER
Christopher HEMHOUSER, individually as
well as his official capacity; JOHN DOEs 1-5
and JANE DOEs 1-5, unknown defendants at
this time, individually and official capacity,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff David Hohsfield’s Application for Pro
Bono Counsel [Docket # 24]. For the reasons that follow, the application is denied.
Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has found a constitutional right to counsel for litigants in a civil case. See Parham v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456 (3d Cir. 1997). A district court, however, “may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). District courts are
vested with broad discretionary authority to determine whether counsel should be appointed to
represent such a civil pro se plaintiff. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). The
Third Circuit, however, has indicated that courts should be careful in appointing pro bono
counsel because “volunteer lawyer time is a precious commodity [that] should not be wasted on
frivolous cases.” Parham, 126 F.3d at 458. A court should only consider appointing counsel if
the plaintiff has not alleged a frivolous or malicious claim. Id. at 457. Therefore, as a threshold
matter, this Court must first consider the merits of a plaintiff’s allegations. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at
1
155 (“Before the court is justified in exercising its discretion in favor of appointment, it must
first appear that the claim has some merit in fact and law.”) (citation omitted).
If a plaintiff’s claim has arguable merit, the court will then consider a number of
additional factors that bear on the need for appointed counsel, including: (1) the plaintiff’s ability
to present his or her own case; (2) the complexity of the legal issues; (3) the degree to which
factual investigation will be necessary and the plaintiff’s ability to pursue such investigation; (4)
the likelihood that the case will turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether the case will
require the testimony of expert witnesses; and (6) whether the plaintiff can obtain and afford
counsel on his own behalf. Parham, 126 F.3d at 457. This list of factors is not exhaustive; it is
intended to serve as a guidepost for the district courts.
The Court has determined in its Opinion and Order of November 2, 2011 that Plaintiff
has sufficiently pled a valid cause of action for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
But, the Court finds that a consideration of the Parham factors does not warrant appointment of
counsel in this case at this time. The legal issues presented in this case are not so complex that
Plaintiff will require the assistance of counsel in order to pursue his case effectively—at least at
this early stage. It appears to the Court that the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims will ultimately turn
on what the Defendants did or did not know about the legality of Plaintiff’s prescribed sleep
medication prior to his arrest. Appointing counsel prior to the Defendants having submitted an
answer would be premature. In addition, it does not appear that significant factual investigation
or expert testimony will be required in this matter. Although Plaintiff’s case may turn on witness
credibility, this factor alone does not warrant the appointment of counsel at such an early stage of
this litigation. On balance, the record does not support appointing counsel for Plaintiff at this
time. The Court does note, however, that Plaintiff may renew his request for appointment of
counsel at any time during this action. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156.
2
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS on this 5th day of December, 2011
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel [24] is DENIED without
prejudice.
/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
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?