Eaton v. United States of America

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by William Gene Eaton.Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/20/15. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM GENE EATON,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-1932
(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction
The pro se plaintiff, William Gene Eaton, an inmate at the Schuylkill Federal

Correctional Institution in Minersville, Pennsylvania, filed this Federal Tort Claim Act
action on October 5, 2015. He alleges Bureau of Prison staff were negligent in
maintaining the prison walkways on March 12, 2015, when he slipped and fell on an
icy sidewalk. He sustained a concussion and several broken ribs, and subsequently
developed pneumonia. Mr. Eaton also claims prison medical staff were negligent in
their initial diagnosis and treatment of him following his fall. He was eventually sent
to an outside hospital were additional injuries were discovered. (Doc. 1, Compl.)
Presently before the Court is Mr. Eaton’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Although he is “a jail-house lawyer,” he claims he still suffers from a concussion and
believes ‘[j]ustice would not be served for Plaintiff without an attorney.” (Doc. 3.)
For the following reasons, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

II.

Standard of Review
This is a civil action, not a criminal one. Hence the plaintiff has no

constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294
F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002). Nor can the court compel a lawyer to represent an
indigent plaintiff. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 n.1 (3d Cir. 1993). Rather,
representation for an indigent is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) which only
provides that the court "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford counsel." (emphasis added).
A district court has broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in deciding
whether to seek counsel, Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498, and the decision can be
made at any point of the litigation. Id. at 503-04. The Third Circuit has provided
guidance for the exercise of the district court’s discretion. At the threshold, the court
must decide whether the plaintiff’s case “has some arguable merit in fact and law.”
Id. at 499 (quoting Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457 (3d Cir. 1997)). A court
need not appoint counsel “if the indigent’s chances of success on the merits are
extremely slim.” Id. at 500 (quoting Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d
Cir. 1986))(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

III.

Discussion
This case is in its procedural infancy. The court has just recently directed

service of Mr. Eaton’s Complaint on the Defendant. Until the Defendant responds to
the Complaint the court will not be able to fully assess the threshold question of the

-2-

arguable factual and legal merit of Plaintiff’s claims for the purpose of appointing
him counsel. There is no evidence, at this point, that any prejudice will result in the
absence of counsel. Consequently, at this time Mr. Eaton’s request for counsel will
be denied. 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: October 20, 2015

-3-