Harris v. Shovelin
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 12 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Richard M. Harris. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 7/13/17. (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD M. HARRIS,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN SHOVELIN, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-17-0448
(Judge Caputo)
MEMORANDUM
I.
Introduction
Presently before the Court is Mr. Harris’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
12) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be
denied.
II.
Background
Plaintiff Richard M. Harris, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Benner
Township State Correctional Institution (SCI-Benner), in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, brings the
instant pro se civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment
claims against John Shovelin and Mark Nycum following a January 13, 2017 event at SCISmithfield. He claims Mr. Shovelin assaulted him while Mr. Nycum looked on. Following the
assault, Defendants allegedly conspired to cover up the event by issuing Mr. Harris a false
misconduct claiming he assaulted Mr. Shovelin. The Defendants also conspired to obstruct
justice by lying to the Pennsylvania State Police and the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence during their investigations of the
event. (ECF No. 15, Am. Compl.) Mr. Harris suffered physical and emotional injury following
the event. He seeks compensatory, punitive and injunctive relief. (Id.)
III.
Standard of Review
Although prisoners have no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of
counsel in a civil case, the Court has broad discretionary power to appoint counsel under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see also Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993).
In its decision, the Tabron Court announced the factors to be considered by a district
court when deciding whether to exercise its discretion and appoint counsel for an indigent
litigant in a civil case. Initially, “the district court must consider as a threshold the merits of the
plaintiff’s claim.” Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. Next, if a claim has arguable merit, “[t]he plaintiff’s
ability to present his or her claim is, or course, a significant factor that must be considered in
determining whether to appoint counsel.” Id. at 156. “If it appears that an indigent plaintiff with
a claim of arguable merit is incapable of presenting his or her own case ... and if such a
plaintiff’s claim is truly substantial, counsel should ordinarily be appointed.” Id.
In addition to the indigent plaintiff’s ability to present his or her case, Tabron requires
the district court to consider the following additional factors: (1) the difficulty of the particular
legal issues; (2) the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the ability of
the plaintiff to pursue investigation; (3) the plaintiff’s capacity to retain counsel on his own
-2-
behalf; (4) the extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; and (5)
whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses. Id. at 155 - 57. However, while
these factors are meant to guide the Court in making its determination, they are not exhaustive
and the Court may consider any other factor it deems relevant. Id. at 157. Moreover, it is
noted that appointment of counsel under § 1915(d) may be made by the court sua sponte at
any point in the litigation. Id. at 156.
Finally, district “courts have no authority to compel counsel to represent an indigent civil
litigant,” id. at 157 n. 7, and courts are cautioned against the indiscriminate appointment of
counsel in view of the limited supply of competent attorneys willing to accept such
assignments. Id. at 157.
IV.
Discussion
Applying the relevant Tabron factors in this case, the appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time.
This case is in its procedural infancy. Defendants were recently served with the
Amended Complaint. Defendants will either challenge the legal basis of the Amended
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. We note that at the time of filing his motion for appointment of
counsel he was housed at SCI-Rockview’s Mental Health Unit (MHU). Mr. Harris, however,
is now housed at a different facility, SCI-Benner, and has filed his Amended Complaint. Upon
-3-
consideration of these facts and Mr. Harris’ filings to date, the Court finds that he has
demonstrated an ability to understand and communicate clearly in English. Further, his
arguments are logical and straightforward in their presentation. He does not suggest, or
provide other documentation, that he presently suffers from any impediment unusual to other
pro se prisoner litigants before this Court. It is also noted that Mr. Harris does not advise the
Court of any effort he has undertaken to obtain counsel on his ow n.
To the extent that Mr. Harris’ 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 early point in the litigation, that any prejudice will befall Mr.
Harris in the absence of court appointed counsel. Consequently, Mr. Harris’ request for
counsel will be denied without prejudice. Should future proceedings demonstrate the need
for counsel, the matter may be reconsidered, either sua sponte or upon a motion properly filed.
An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
Date: July 13, 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?