Opinion
CIVIL 3:23-cv-159
03-01-2023
JOSE BLANCHARD II, Plaintiff v. DIPTI AMIN, CARMEN KATCHKO, LEA MARTIN, KEVIN RANSOM, Defendants
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2023, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to appoint counsel, and upon review of the factors the Court should consider when determining whether to appoint counsel for a pro se plaintiff, and it appearing, at this early juncture in the proceedings, that Plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims, and it being well-established that indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, see Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498; Parham, 126 F.3d at 456-57; Tabron, 6 F.3d at 153-54, and that district courts have broad discretion to determine whether to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) to appoint counsel is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of Plaintiff.
Pursuant to Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147,155 (3d Cir. 1993), the Court should consider the litigant's ability to proceed pro se in light of a number of non-exhaustive factors, including: (1) the plaintiffs ability to present his or her case; (2) the complexity of the particular legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual investigation is required and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue such investigation; (4) the amount a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses; and (6) the plaintiff's ability to retain and afford counsel on his or her own behalf. Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492,499 (3d Cir. 2002); Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454,457-58 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57.