Waugh v. Sisco

Full title: ULYSSES WAUGH, Plaintiff, v. M. SISCO and SPENCER FINCH, Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Jan 29, 2009

Civil Action No. 08-CV-6004 (DMC) (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-CV-6004 (DMC).

January 29, 2009

OPINION

DENNIS CAVANAUGH, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon motion by pro se Plaintiff Ulysses Waugh ("Plaintiff") for the appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no oral argument was heard. After carefully considering Plaintiff's submissions, and based upon the following, it is the finding of the Court that Plaintiff's application is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Tabron v. Grace pro bono See6 F.3d 147155158See id. Tabron See id. Tabron

(1) the claim has some merit;

(2) the pro se party lacks the ability to present an effective case without an attorney;

(3) the legal issues are complex or, the ultimate legal issues are not complex, but the pro se party lacks the familiarity with the rules of evidence and discovery needed to translate understanding of the law into presentation of the proofs;

(4) factual investigation will be necessary and the party is not adequately able to pursue said investigation;

(5) the case is likely to turn on credibility determinations;

(6) the case will require expert testimony; and

(7) the party is unable to attain and afford counsel on his/her own behalf.

See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 357 (3d Cir. 1997); Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-56.

Courts must consider the ability of the plaintiff to present his or her case without the assistance of counsel. See id. at 156. In making this determination, courts "generally should consider the plaintiff's education, literacy, prior work experience, and prior litigation experience." Id. Courts should "also consider the difficulty of particular legal issues . . . the degree to which factual investigation will be required and the ability of the indigent plaintiff to pursue investigation."Id.

III. ANALYSIS

In analyzing the merits of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court is cognizant that a pro se plaintiff's complaint is held to a less stringent standard than pleadings filed by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Moreover, the Court recognizes that civil rights allegations, however inartfully pleaded, are not meritless unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim which would entitle him or her to relief. Id.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants arrested him without cause or provocation and that they illegally searched and beat him. Although Plaintiff's Complaint will require significant development, Plaintiff has establish that his claims have sufficient merit to allow the Court to proceed to the second stage of the pro bono counsel analysis. Plaintiff has demonstrated adequate understanding of his claims and that he is literate and capable of performing research. The factual development required in this case will be difficult. Nonetheless, based on the clarity and sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleadings and in recognition of the fact that Plaintiff will be able to utilize the law library at the Paterson facility, it appears that he will be able to handle discovery and pursue his claims without an attorney. Moreover, Plaintiff claims that because of his incarceration and financial situation, he cannot obtain an attorney however, it appears that he has made no effort to try and obtain one. Based on a review of Plaintiff's Complaint and application, the Court finds that appointment of pro bono counsel is not appropriate at this time.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, it is the finding of the Court that Plaintiff's application for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.