Picarella v. Brouse et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying pltf's motion 72 for appt of cnsl without prejudice. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/25/19. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES PICARELLA, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
KRISTA BROUSE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-501
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2019, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 72) for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and
assuming that plaintiff’s claims have an arguable basis in law and fact 1, and it
appearing, at this juncture in the proceedings, that plaintiff is capable of properly
and forcefully prosecuting his claims, and that discovery neither implicates complex
legal or factual issues nor requires factual investigation or the testimony of expert
witnesses, and it being well-established that indigent civil litigants possess neither a
constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, Montgomery

If the court determines that a claim has “arguable merit in fact and law,”
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993), consideration of the litigant’s ability
to proceed pro se in light of a number of additional non-exhaustive factors,
including: (1) the plaintiff’s ability to present his or her case; (2) the complexity of
the particular legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual investigation is required
and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue such investigation; (4) the amount a case is
likely to turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether the case will require
testimony from expert witnesses; and (6) the plaintiff’s ability to retain and afford
counsel on his or her own behalf, is then undertaken. Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294
F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002); Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457-58 (3d Cir. 1997);
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57.
1

v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002), and that district courts have broad
discretion to determine whether to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, it is
hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 72) is DENIED without prejudice. If
further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be
reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania