From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mouscardy v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Jan 29, 2021
Civil Action No. 20-2143 (RBK) (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 20-2143 (RBK)

01-29-2021

REGINALD MOUSCARDY, Petitioner, v. D.K. WHITE, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel and Respondent's motion to dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 6, 16.)

With regard Petitioner's request to appoint counsel, our jurisprudence provides the Court with broad discretion in determining whether to request representation for an indigent civil litigant notwithstanding the fact that indigent civil litigants "have no statutory right to appointed counsel." Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994). In evaluating a motion seeking the appointment of counsel, a court must first determine whether a petitioner's claims have arguable merit. Id. at 155.

If a court finds that a petitioner's claims have merit, the court should consider the following non-exclusive factors: 1) the petitioner's ability to present his or her own case; 2) the complexity of the legal issues; 3) the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the ability of the petitioner to pursue such investigation; 4) the amount a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; 5) whether the case will require the testimony of expert witnesses; and 6) whether the petitioner can attain and afford counsel on her own behalf. See id. at 155-57.

With those principles in mind, Petitioner fails to address any of the factors discussed above, with the exception of his indigency and the merits of his claims. Accordingly, the Court will deny Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. The Court will allow Petitioner to submit a renewed motion to appoint, along with a brief that addresses each of the factors discussed above.

As to Respondent's motion to dismiss, assuming arguendo, that this Court has jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's Rehaif claim, Farrell v. Warden, No. 20-4414, 2021 WL 222684, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 22, 2021), the Court will direct Respondent to submit supplemental briefing as to his arguments on the merits. In particular, Respondent shall include all the transcripts and documents relevant to his arguments.

Accordingly, IT IS on this 29th day of January 2021,

ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 6.), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner may submit a new motion to appoint counsel, addressing the factors discussed above, within 30 days of the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall submit supplemental briefing addressing the issues discussed above, along with all transcripts and documents relevant to his arguments, within 30 days of the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that after receiving Respondent's supplemental briefing, Petitioner shall have 30 days to submit a response; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 16.), is TERMINATED, pending receipt of the documents discussed above; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

s/Robert B. Kugler

ROBERT B. KUGLER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mouscardy v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Jan 29, 2021
Civil Action No. 20-2143 (RBK) (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Mouscardy v. White

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD MOUSCARDY, Petitioner, v. D.K. WHITE, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Jan 29, 2021

Citations

Civil Action No. 20-2143 (RBK) (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2021)