Boyd v. Lisiak et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 16 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Stevie Boyd, 18 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Stevie Boyd. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 8/17/17. (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVIE BOYD,
Plaintiff
Civil No. 3: 16-cv-1262
(Judge Mariani)
v.
DOCTOR JOHN LISIAK,
DOCTOR HARESH PANDYA,
NELSON !ANNUZZI,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Stevie Boyd, an inmate currently confined at the Frackville State Correctional
Institution, initiated the above-captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are Dr. Haresh Pandya, Dr. John Lisiak, and Nelson
Iannuzzi, CRNP. (Id. at pp. 2, 5-6). Boyd alleges that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to properly treat his thyroid condition.
(Doc. 1).
Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel. (Docs.
16, 18). For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied without prejudice.
Although prisoners have no constitutional or statutory right to appointment of counsel
in a civil case, the Court has discretion "to request an attorney to represent any person
unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-
57 (3d Cir. 1997); Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002); Tabron v.
Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has stated that the appointment of counsel for an indigent litigant should be made ·
when circumstances indicate "the likelihood of substantial prejudice to him resulting, for
example, from his 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 case has some arguable merit in
fact or law. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499. If a plaintiff overcomes this threshold hurdle,
other factors to be examined are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
the plaintiffs ability to present his or her own case;
the difficulty of the particular legal issues;
the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the
ability of the plaintiff to pursue investigation;
the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his or her own behalf;
the extent to which the case is likely to turn on credibility
determinations; and
whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses.
Id. (citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals added two other
factors to be taken into consideration: (1) the court's willingness to aid the indigent party in
presenting his or her own case; and (2) the available supply of lawyers willing to accept
section 1915(e) requests within the relevant geographic area. See Gordon v. Gonzalez,
2
232 F. App'x 153 (3d Cir. 2007).
Assuming arguendo that the complaint has merit, Plaintiff fails to set forth any
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-56.
Plaintiff bases his motions on the alleged complexity of the case, his mental instability, lack
of education, lack of legal experience, and inability to afford counsel. (Docs. 16, 18). Upon
review of the complaint, the legal issues presented in this case are not complex and likely
will not require expert testimony. Furthermore, despite his incarceration, investigation of the
facts is not beyond Plaintiff's capabilities and he is familiar with the facts of his case. In his
pleadings, Plaintiff demonstrates the ability to adequately present his case. Moreover, the
Court notes that it does not have a large group of attorneys who would represent this action
in a pro bono capacity.
Based on the foregoing, it does not appear that Plaintiff will suffer prejudice if forced
to prosecute this case on his own. The Court's duty to construe prose pleadings liberally,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Riley v. Jeffes, 777 F.2d 143, 147-48 (3d Cir. 1985),
coupled with Plaintiff's apparent ability to litigate this action, militate against the appointment
of counsel. Accordingly, the motions for appointment of counsel will be denied, however
said denial will be without prejudice. As the Court in Tabron stated,
[A]ppointment of counsel under§ 1915(d) may be made at any point in the
litigation and may be made by the district court sua sponte ... even if it does
not appear until trial (or immediately before trial) that an indigent litigant is not
capable of trying his or her case, the district court should consider
3
appointment of counsel at that point.
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156-57. Therefore, in the event that future proceedings demonstrate the
need for counsel, the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of
Plaintiff.
A separate Order follows.
Date: August
fl,
2017
4
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?