IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

ALONZO JOHNSON, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL NO.4:CV-05-2664

:

: (Judge Jones) 

K. BITTENBENDER, et. al, :

Defendants :

ORDER

May 4, 2006 

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

This pro se civil rights action was filed by Alonzo Johnson (“Plaintiff” or

“Johnson”), an inmate presently confined at the Allenwood Federal Correctional

Institution, in White Deer, Pennsylvania. Service of the complaint was previously

ordered. Presently pending is Plaintiff’s motion seeking appointment of counsel

(Rec. Doc. 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-02664-JEJ-JVW Document 20 Filed 05/04/06 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-02664-JEJ-JVW Document 20 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 4
 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 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 Johnson'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, Johnson'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. 

Case 4:05-cv-02664-JEJ-JVW Document 20 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 4
4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 18) is DENIED.

 s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

 

Case 4:05-cv-02664-JEJ-JVW Document 20 Filed 05/04/06 Page 4 of 4