Filing 116


Download PDF
i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EATERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) WHEELER ZAMICHIELI, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM ANDREWS, et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-3200-GMS ) Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington, tlriS"i f\day of f\9w 2015, having considered the plaintiff's request for counsel (D .I. 110.) I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, Wheeler Zamichieli ("the plaintiff'), a pro se litigant who is presently incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action in 2012. He appears prose, paid the filing fee and, later, was granted permission to proceed informapauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 46.) II. REQUEST FOR COUNSEL The plaintiff seeks counsel on the grounds that: (1) he has made several attempts to retain counsel, all unsuccessful; (2) he has a genuine claim; (3) municipal defendants have failed to respond to his discovery requests; (4) the defendant Ronald Dove ("Dove") was recently charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution, obstructing administration of law, criminal conspiracy and related' offenses; and (5) his incarceration hinders his ability to effective litigate this civil action. I A pro se litigo/it proceeding in forma pauperis has no constitutional or statutory right to Representation by counsel. 1 See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 2011); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). However, representation by counsel may be appropriate under certain circumstances, after a finding that a plaintiff's claim has arguable merit in fact and law. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. After passing this threshold inquiry, the court should consider a number of factors when assessing a request for counsel. Factors to be considered by a court in deciding whether to request a lawyer to represent an indigent plaintiff include: (1) the merits of the plaintiffs claim; (2) the plaintiffs ability to present his or her case considering his or her education, literacy, experience, and the restraints placed upon him or her by incarceration; (3) the complexity of the legal issues; (4) the degree to which factual investigation is required and the plaintiffs ability to pursue such investigation; (5) the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his or her own behalf; and (6) the degree to which the case turns on credibility determinations or expert testimony. See Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498-99 (3d Cir. 2002); Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-56. The list is not exhaustive, nor is any one factor determinative. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157. Assuming, solely for the purpose of deciding this motion, that the plaintiffs claims have merit in fact and law, several of the Tabron factors militate. against granting his request for counsel. After reviewing the plaintiffs complaint, the court concludes that the case is not so factually or legally complex that requesting an attorney is warranted. In addition, to date, the See Mallardv. United States Dist. Court/or the S. Dist. ofIowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (§ 1915(d) (now§ 1915(e)(l)) does not authorize a federal court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant, the operative word in the statute being "request."). 1 2 plaintiff has ably represented himself in this court. Also, the municipal defendants were recently . I ordered to respond to outstanding discovery requests. In light of the foregoing, the court will deny without prejudice to renew the plaintiffs request for counsel. Should the need for counsel arise later, one can be appointed at that time. III. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, as follows: The plaintiffs request for counsel is denied without prejudice to renew (D. 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?