Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Portis v. Harvey

August 31, 2006

BERNICE PORTIS, PLAINTIFF
v.
DR. FRANCIS J. HARVEY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Kane

MEMORANDUM

Pursuant to this Court's order entered August 18, 2006, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and Plaintiff was granted leave to re-file her complaint within 30 days. (Doc. No. 6.) In addition, the Court reserved ruling on Plaintiff's motion seeking appointment of counsel pending re-filing of the complaint.

On August 28, 2006, Plaintiff re-filed her complaint together with a number of attachments, alleging, inter alia, that she was discriminated against on the basis of race and complaining of an investigation into certain conduct that Plaintiff was alleged to have engaged in on August 1, 2005, while attending an employment function. (Doc. No. 7.) Although the complaint is extremely general in nature, the Court finds that it satisfies the liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court will direct the complaint to be served upon Defendant by the Clerk of Court in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

With respect to Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel to represent her in this action, the Court notes initially that there is neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to counsel for civil litigants. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). Despite the lack of a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that "[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to employ counsel." A district court's appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is discretionary and must be made on a case-by-case basis. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157-58.

In Tabron, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit first outlined with specificity the applicable standards to be considered by courts upon an application to appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57. In Parham, the Third Circuit enumerated the following considerations for appointing counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

As a preliminary matter, the plaintiff's claim must have some merit in fact and law. If the district court determines that the plaintiff's claim has some merit, then the district court should consider the following factors:

(1) the plaintiff'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 plaintiff 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;

(6) whether the plaintiff can attain and afford counsel on his own behalf.

This list of factors is not exhaustive, but instead should serve as a guidepost for the district courts. Correspondingly, courts should exercise care in appointing counsel because volunteer lawyer time is a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.