United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge.
Richard Alan McAnulty, an inmate housed at the Coal Township State Correctional Institution (SCI-Coal Township), in Coal Township, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants' deliberate indifference to his various medical needs (hypertension, diabetes, fibromyalgia, cervical spine ailments, and other geriatric illnesses). (Doc. 19, Am. Compl.)
Presently before the Court is Mr. McAnulty's second motion for counsel based on his limited knowledge of the law, limited access to the law library and legal materials. He recites his unsuccessful efforts to obtain legal counsel in this matter on his ow while noting that he cannot timely address the defendants' motions to dismiss "without the help of legal counsel due to [his] limited access to legal materials and limited law library time." (Doc. 27, Second Mot. for Counsel.)
For the reasons that follow, Mr. McAnulty's motion will be denied without prejudice.
A pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis does not have a constitutional or statutory right to representation by counsel. Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002). However, Congress has granted district courts the discretion to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). A district court as "broad discretion" to determine whether counsel should be appointed. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498. The appointment of counsel is made only "upon a showing of special circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [plaintiff] resulting... from [plaintiff's] probable inability without such assistance to present the facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case." Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984). The initial determination to be made by the court in evaluating the expenditure of the "precious commodity" of volunteer counsel is whether the plaintiff's case "has some arguable merit in fact and law." Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499. Next, if plaintiff's claims meet this threshold review, other non-exclusive factors to be examined are:
1. the plaintiff's ability to present his or her 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 extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility determinations;
5. whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses;
6. the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his or her own behalf;
Parham v. Johnson,
126 F.3d 454, 457 (3d Cir. 1997)(citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)). After examining the above factors, the Court will deny Mr. McAnulty's ...