UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

PAUL KIMBLE, :

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO.4:CV-05-1871

:

: (Judge McClure) 

FRANKLIN TENNIS, ET AL., :

Defendants :

ORDER

April 4, 2006

Background

This pro se civil rights complaint was filed by Paul Kimble, an inmate

presently confined at the Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte,

Pennsylvania. Service of the complaint was previously ordered. Presently

pending is Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel (Record document

no. 18).

Although prisoners have no constitutional or statutory rights to appointment

of counsel in a civil case, the Court does have broad discretionary power to

appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153

Case 4:05-cv-01871-JFM-JVW Document 27 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 4
1. The Tabron court noted that “... the district court must consider as a

threshold matter the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.” Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. 

Next, if a claim has arguable merit, “[t]he plaintiff’s ability to present his or her

claim is, of course, a significant factor that must be considered in determining

whether to appoint counsel.” Id. at 156. “If it appears that an indigent plaintiff

with a claim of arguable merit is incapable of presenting his or her case,

serious consideration should be given to the appointing of counsel... and if

such a plaintiff’s claim is truly substantial, counsel should ordinarily be

appointed.” Id. at 156.

2

(3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1996 (1994).1 Under Tabron, a district

court’s decision whether to appoint counsel should be “informed” by a

consideration of the following additional factors: the “difficulty of the particular

legal issues;” “the degree to which factual investigation will be required and the

ability of the indigent plaintiff to pursue such investigation;” whether a case is likely

to turn on credibility determinations; whether expert testimony is required; and

whether the litigant is capable of retaining counsel on his or her own behalf. Id. at

156, 157 n.5. Moreover, the Tabron court held that the “... appointment of

counsel under § 1915(d) may be made at any point in the litigation and may be

made by the district court sua sponte.” Id. at 156. 

Finally, the Tabron court acknowledged that “courts have no authority to

compel counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant,” Id. at 157 n.7, and cautioned

against the indiscriminate appointment of counsel in view of the limited supply of

competent attorneys willing to accept such appointments. Id. at 157:

Case 4:05-cv-01871-JFM-JVW Document 27 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 4
3

 Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals again recognized that

“[i]ndigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to

appointed counsel.” Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002)

(citation omitted). It also reiterated that the criteria developed in Tabron should be

employed in addressing the appointment of counsel issue.

The present motion fails to set forth sufficient special circumstances or

factors that would warrant appointment of counsel. See Tabron, supra, at 155-56. 

In the pleadings submitted by Plaintiff to date, he has demonstrated that he is

capable of presenting comprehensible arguments. Furthermore, this Court's liberal

construction of pro se pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), coupled

with Kimble's apparent ability to litigate this action pro se, militate against the

appointment of counsel. Moreover, the legal issues are relatively uncomplicated,

and the Court cannot say, at least at this point, that Plaintiff will suffer substantial

prejudice if he is forced to prosecute this case on his own. 

Therefore, Kimble's motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. In

the event, however, that future proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the

matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon a motion properly filed by

the Plaintiff. Consequently,

Case 4:05-cv-01871-JFM-JVW Document 27 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 4
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Record

 document no. 18) is denied.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 4:05-cv-01871-JFM-JVW Document 27 Filed 04/04/06 Page 4 of 4