Martinez v. Jones et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 15 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Juan Martinez Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 1/13/14. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUAN MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff
v.
SGT. B JONES, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-12-1547
(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
This matter comes before the Court on the application of pro se Plaintiff Juan

Martinez for the appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1). (Doc. 15, Mot. Appt. of Counsel.) After carefully considering Mr.
Martinez’s request, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

II.

Background
This matter involves events that transpired while Mr. Martinez was

incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill, in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, Compl.) Mr.
Martinez, however, commenced this action after his release from prison and paid
the full filing fee in this matter. (Doc. 1-1, Receipt.) Following Mr. Martinez’s service
of a summons and a Complaint on the named defendants, the Commonwealth
defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 10).1

1

This motion is ripe for disposition and will be addressed under separate cover at
the convenience of the court.

Mr. Martinez alleges that he was assaulted by several Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) employees on March 28, 2010, while at SCICamp Hill. (Doc. 1, Compl.) He alleges other prison officials witnessed the assault
but failed to intervene. (Id.) Following the assault, Mr. Martinez claims he was
denied personal property, food, and an impartial misconduct hearing which resulted
in his placement in a restricted housing unit. (Id.) Finally, Mr. Martinez names
additional prison officials who were charged with investigating the events of March
28, 2010, and alleged they have covered up the true facts of the event.

III.

Discussion
There is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel for civil litigants.

Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002). Congress has granted
district courts the discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable
to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)(Noting that appointment of counsel
pursuant to § 1915(e)(1) is “discretionary”). A court’s discretionary authority to
appoint an attorney to represent a civil litigant (prisoner or non-incarcerated
individual) only comes into play when the party is proceeding within the terms of 28
U.S.C. § 1915, Proceedings In Forma Pauperis, which necessarily implies the
litigant’s indigent status, and is made on a case-by-case basis. Tabron v. Grace, 6
F.3d 147, 157-58 (3d Cir. 1993).
In Tabron, the United States Court of Appeals outlined the standards to be
considered by district courts when reviewing an application to appoint counsel

-2-

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The initial determination to be made by the
court in evaluating the expenditure of the "precious commodity" of volunteer counsel
is whether the plaintiff's case "has some arguable merit in fact and law.” Tabron, 6
F.3d at 156-57. Next, if plaintiff's claims meet this threshold review, other
non-exclusive factors to be examined are:
1. the plaintiff's ability to present his or her own case;
2. the difficulty of the particular legal issues;
3. the degree to which factual investigation will be
necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue
investigation;
4. the extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility
determinations;
5. whether the case will require testimony from expert
witnesses;
6. the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his or her own behalf;
Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457 (3d Cir. 1997)(citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)). After examining the above factors, the Court will deny
Mr. Martinez’s present motion for counsel without prejudice.
This case is in its procedural infancy. Pending before the Court is
Defendants’ challenge to the legal basis of the Complaint. Until Defendants’ motion
to dismiss is resolved, the Court will not be able to fully assess the threshold
question of the arguable factual and legal merit of Plaintiff’s claims for the purpose
of appointing him counsel. Moreover, Mr. Martinez did not seek appointment of
counsel until after filing his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Mr.
Martinez’s Complaint, and other correspondence to the court, have been clearly
worded and present logical concise arguments, complete with legal citations.

-3-

To the extent that Mr. Martinez’s request for counsel is based on the fact of
his indigent status, these facts do not warrant the appointment of counsel given this
Court's liberal construction of pro se pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92
S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Critical to this discussion is the fact that Mr.
Martinez is not proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter, nor has he requested to
do so. Mr. Martinez paid the filing fee in this matter. Mr. Martinez would have to do
more than simply assert that he can not afford legal counsel because he does not
have a job or a steady source of income prior to the Court finding he is indigent
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
As for Mr. Martinez’s assertion that his mental health issues prevent him from
presenting his case, as noted above, Mr. Martinez’s filings to date have been
commendable given his pro se status. His arguments are clear and supported by
legal authority. He offers no evidence to suggest that his mental health problems
are impacting his ability to represent himself at this point. To the extent that he
claims that he is unable to conduct the necessary factual investigations to present
his case because his former inmate status prevents him from traveling to various
institutions to talk to the defendants, staff or inmates, the Court is not persuaded.
Mr. Martinez need not travel to SCI-Camp Hill to conduct discovery in this matter.
Mr. Martinez does not suggest that defendants are unwilling to engage in discovery,
or that he is unable to conduct third party discovery utilizing forms of inquiry other
than depositions or face-to-face conversations to obtain information desired.

-4-

Accordingly, Mr. Martinez has not demonstrated that he will suffer substantial
prejudice if he is required to proceed with the prosecution of his case on his own at
this point. However, Plaintiff after obtaining in forma pauperis standing, may file
another motion for appointment of counsel if circumstances change.
An appropriate Order follows.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
Date: January 13

, 2014

-5-