The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert F. Kelly, Sr. J.
Presently before this Court is Plaintiff, Clinton Hoggard's ("Plaintiff"), Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons set forth below, this Motion is denied.
Plaintiff filed suit against Catch, Inc. ("Defendant") alleging violations of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 951-963). (Compl. at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant terminated his employment due to a broken right ankle that occurred while working for the Defendant. (Compl. at 3.)
We begin from the established premise that "indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to appointed counsel." Gordon v. Gonzalez, 232 F. App'x 153, 156 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002)). However, a district court is empowered with the discretion to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court's decision whether to appoint counsel is to be given wide latitude and will only be overturned if its ruling is clearly an abuse of discretion. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).
As a preliminary matter, the district court must first determine if the Plaintiff's claim has arguable merit in fact and law. Upon a favorable finding, the court then proceeds to consider certain additional factors that bear on the necessity for the appointment of counsel. Id. at 155. These factors enunciated in Tabron include: (1) the plaintiff's ability to present his own case; (2) the difficulty of the particular legal issues; (3) the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue investigation; (4) the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his own behalf; (5) the extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; and (6) whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499 (quoting Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155). This list is not exhaustive, nor is any one factor determinative. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 458 (3d Cir. 1997).
At the early stage of this litigation, it is difficult to discern whether Plaintiff's claim possesses "merit in fact and law." However, upon review of the Complaint, it appears Plaintiff's claim has arguable merit in fact and law. Consequently, we proceed upon the analytical course charted in Tabron.
(A) The Plaintiff's Ability to Present His Own Case
The ability of a plaintiff to present his own case is arguably the most significant of the Tabron factors. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 501. This determination is based on several criteria including plaintiff's education, literacy, prior work experience, prior litigation experience, ability to understand English and restraints placed on him by incarceration (i.e., access to resources such as a typewriter, telephone and computer). Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156; see also Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d at 459. However, it is not necessary that Plaintiff have the skills and expertise of a trial lawyer; only that he possess the baseline abilities to adequately present his case. See Gorden v. Gonzalez, 232 F. App'x at 157 (the decision point is not whether plaintiff is a trial lawyer).
Due to the capabilities of Plaintiff this factor weighs against the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has completed twenty years of schooling, is literate, writes coherently and is fluent in English. Additionally, Plaintiff is not incarcerated, and therefore, none of the hardships and restraints inherent in incarceration are present in this case. Though no one factor is dispositive, this factor weighs heavily against the appointment of counsel.
(B) The Difficulty of the Particular Legal Issues
Where cases involve complicated legal issues, courts should be "more inclined to appoint counsel." Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156. In such situations, all the parties involved will benefit. Parham, 126 F.3d at 459. The ends of justice are best served by those trained in legal analysis handling cases where the law is not clear or difficult legal issues are presented. Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 1981). This case poses neither danger. Rather, the legal issues inherent in Plaintiff's claims are not overly complex. Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination based on a simple set of facts. These are standard employment discrimination claims and do not implicate any complicated or novel issues of law. See Scotton v. Agilent Technologies, No. 03-361, 2003 WL 21250586, at *1 (E.D. Pa. ...