Petitioner, Civil No. 11—317 (CCC)

V.

OPINION

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

APPEARANCES:

Paul Appiah, Plaintiff pro se

525 N. 36th Street

Pennsauken, NJ 08110

Ceochi, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Application

to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel in the above—referenced case (Docket

Entry No. 7.) The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s submission and

decided the motion without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 78. For the following reasons, the Court will

deny the motion for counsel without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner submitted a petition for a writ of mandamus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) to issue his permanent resident card.

Petitioner asks for counsel in this case because he “lacks the

legal expertise to prosecute this matter. EHis] education is very
released by ICE pending his removal. (Letter from Def., Ex. 1,Docket Entry No. 13-1.) Respondents have not yet responded to the

petition.

II. DISCUSSION

Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (1) may be

made by the Court sua sponte at any point in the litigation.

Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 1993). A plaintiff has

no right to counsel in a civil case. at 153—54; Parham v.

Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456—57 (3d Cir. 1997)

In evaluating a motion to appoint counsel, the court must

first examine the merits of Plaintiff’s claim to determine if it

has “some arguable merit in fact and law.” Tunnell v. Gardell,

No. 01—115, 2003 WL 1463394, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2003) (citing

Parham, 126 F.3d at 457) (other citations omitted) . If the court is

satisfied that the claim is “factually and legally meritorious,”

then it will examine the following factors: (1) a plaintiff’s

ability to present his or her own case; (2) the complexity of thelegal issues; (3) the degree to which factual investigation will be

necessary and the ability of a plaintiff to pursue such

investigation; (4) the amount a case is likely to turn on

2
n.5).

However, a court should also consider other factors, such as

the lack of funding to pay appointed counsel, the limited supply of

competent lawyers willing to do pro bono work, and the value of

lawyers’ time. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 157—58.

In the instant case, Respondents have not yet responded to the

petition. Thus, whether or not the Petitioner’s claims have merit,

the factual and legal issues “have not been tested or developed by

the general course of litigation, making [a number of factors] ofParham’s test particularly difficult to evaluate.” Bell v.

Kuebler, No. 11—0291, 2011 WL 487187, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 3, 2011)

(quoting Chatterjee v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, No. 99—

4122, 2000 WL 1022979, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2000) (stating that

unlike Parham, which concerned a directed verdict ruling, and

Tabron, which involved summary judgment adjudication, plaintiff’sclaims asserted in complaint and motions “have barely been

articulated” and have distinctive procedural posture) )

With regard co the Tabron/Parham factors, Petitioner has not

demonstrated at this stage of proceedings, the complexity of legal

issues, the degree to which factual investigation will be

3
counsel.

The Court recognizes that issues may arise in the course of

this litigation which may raise a question as to Petitioner’s needfor counsel. In that case, the Court will consider a renewed

motion for appointment of counsel. At this point in the

litigation, however, the Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel will be denied, without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request for

appointment of pro bono counsel will be denied, without prejudice

to Petitioner renewing the motion, if necessary, as the case

proceeds. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.Dated: January ,20l2

CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States District Court

4