1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Bezalel GROSSBERGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Patrick RUANE and Marion RUANE,

Defendants.

 

 

Civ. No. 11-3728

OPINION and ORDER

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff Bezalel Grossberger’s Application for 

Pro Bono Counsel [6]. For the reasons that following, the application is denied.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found a 

constitutional right to counsel for litigants in a civil case. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456 

(3d Cir. 1997). A court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). District courts are vested with broad discretionary authority to 

determine whether counsel should be appointed to represent such a civil pro se plaintiff. Tabron 

v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). The Third Circuit, however, has indicated that courts 

should be careful in appointing pro bono counsel because “volunteer lawyer time is a precious 

commodity [that] should not be wasted on frivolous cases.” Parham, 126 F.3d at 458. A court 

should only consider appointing counsel if the plaintiff has not alleged a frivolous or malicious 

claim. Id. at 457. Therefore, as a threshold matter, this Court must first consider the merits of a 

plaintiff’s claim. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155 (“Before the court is justified in exercising its discretion 

in favor of appointment, it must first appear that the claim has some merit in fact and law.”) 

(citation omitted). 

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 8 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 40
2

If a plaintiff’s claim has arguable merit, the court will then consider a number of 

additional factors that bear on the need for appointed counsel, including: (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 plaintiff’s ability to pursue such investigation; (4) 

the likelihood that the case will turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether the case will 

require the testimony of expert witnesses; and (6) whether the plaintiff can obtain and afford 

counsel on his own behalf. Parham, 126 F.3d at 457. This list of factors is not exhaustive, but 

instead is intended to serve as a guidepost for the district courts. 

The Court assumes for purposes of this motion that Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold 

requirement of presenting a meritorious claim. But, the Court finds that a consideration of the 

Parham factors does not warrant appointment of counsel in this case. The legal issues presented 

in this case are not so complex that Plaintiff will require the assistance of counsel in order to 

pursue his case effectively. In addition, it does not appear that significant factual investigation or 

expert testimony will be required in this matter. Although Plaintiff’s case may turn on witness 

credibility, this factor alone does not warrant the appointment of counsel—especially at such an 

early stage of this litigation. On balance, the record does not support appointing counsel for 

Plaintiff at this time. The Court does note, however, that Plaintiff may renew his request for 

appointment of counsel at any time during this action. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS on this 2

nd day of November, 2011

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel [6] is DENIED without 

prejudice.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 8 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 41