Miller v. Bickell et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Jason William Miller Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 12/20/13. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON WILLIAM MILLER,
Plaintiff
v.
SUPT. TODD BICKELL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-13-1794
(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
On June 25, 2013, Jason Miller, an inmate currently housed at the

Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (SCI-Huntingdon), in Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after
he slipped and fell in the shower. He was taken to an outside hospital were he was
treated and released. (Doc. 1, Compl.) Mr. Mack claims the medical staff
misdiagnosed his injuries and failed to adequately treat his pain. (Id.) Presently
before the Court is Mr. Miller’s motion for appointment of counsel based on his
incarceration, limited knowledge of the law, limited access to the law library, and
indigent status. See Doc. 3. For the reasons that follow, Mr. Miller’s motion will be
denied without prejudice.

II.

Discussion
A pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis has no constitutional or

statutory right to representation by counsel. 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). A district court as “broad discretion” to determine whether counsel
should be appointed. Montgomery, 294 F. 3d at 498. The appointment of counsel
is made only "upon a showing of special circumstances indicating the likelihood of
substantial prejudice to [plaintiff] resulting ... from [plaintiff's] probable inability
without such assistance to present the facts and legal issues to the court in a
complex but arguably meritorious case." Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d
Cir. 1984). 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.” Montgomery, 294 F.3d at
499. 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
-2-

147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)). After examining the above factors, the Court will deny
Mr. Miller’s present motion for counsel without prejudice.
This case is in its procedural infancy. The Court has only recently directed
service of the Complaint. Defendants will either challenge the legal basis of the
Complaint or file an answer. Until then, 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. Mr. Miller’s Complaint, and other
correspondence to the court, have been clearly worded and present logical concise
arguments. To the extent that Mr. Miller’s request for counsel is based on the fact of
his incarceration or 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). There is no evidence,
at this point, that any prejudice will result in the absence of counsel. Consequently,
at this time Mr. Miller’s request for counsel will be denied.
Accordingly, Mr. Miller 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 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: December 20

, 2013

-3-