SARMIENTO v. MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY

The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD HEDGES, Magistrate Judge

LETTER-OPINION AND ORDER ORIGINAL FILED WITH CLERK OF THE COURT

  BACKGROUND

  Plaintiff Esteban E. Sarmiento ("Plaintiff") is an anthropologist with a Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology who has taught at numerous college and universities, has published many articles and has much research experience. In October 2001, plaintiff applied for a tenure-track position in biological anthropology at Montclair State University ("Defendant") for which he allegedly was well-qualified. Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to give him an interview or hire him due to his race, color, national origin, and age. Plaintiff contends that the candidate who was hired for the position was a white woman with less education, little teaching experience, a poor publication record, and limited writing experience. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to Title VII, § 1981, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The § 1981, ADEA, and NJLAD claims were dismissed and the Title VII claim remains. He seeks appointment of counsel.

  DISCUSSION

  Indigent litigants have no right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F. 3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994). District courts are given the authority to appoint counsel to represent indigent litigants in meritorious civil cases. 29 U.S.C. § 1915(e). There are many factors which must be considered in making a decision to appoint counsel. Initially, there is the threshold issue of whether the plaintiff's claim has some merit in fact and law. Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. If the claim has "some merit in fact and law," the court should then consider other factors such as: (1) plaintiff's ability to present his case; (2) the complexity of the legal issues; (3) the extent of factual discovery, and plaintiff's ability to investigate and to comply with complex discovery rules; (4) the extent to which the case may turn on credibility determinations; (5) whether expert testimony will be required; and (6) whether plaintiff can attain and afford counsel on his own behalf. 6 F.3d at 155-56; Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457 (3d Cir. 1997). This list of factors is not exhaustive. Parham, 126 F.3d at 457.

  In his application for appointment of counsel, plaintiff states that he is unemployed and unable to afford an attorney. Plaintiff has not demonstrated indigent status or been granted application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the purposes of this analysis, I will assume that plaintiff is indigent and cannot afford counsel.

  I. Whether Plaintiff's Claim Has "Some Merit in Fact and Law"

  The merits in fact and law of the plaintiff's claim must be considered as a threshold matter. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155. Plaintiff's § 1981, ADEA and NJLAD claims have been dismissed based on the Eleventh Amendment. However, I am persuaded that plaintiff's remaining Title VII claim has some merit in fact and law.

  II. Tabron/Parham Factors

  A. Plaintiff's Ability to Present His Case

  Plaintiff is a well-educated man with a Ph.D. He has authored many articles and has taught in many universities and colleges. He has been a research associate at The Museum of Natural History since 1985. He is very literate and has not provided any information that he lacks the resources necessary to present his case effectively. I am unable at this time to see how plaintiff may be rendered incapable of effectively presenting his case. Therefore, this factor weighs against appointment of counsel.

  B. Complexity of Legal Issues

  Courts should be more inclined to appoint counsel if the legal issues presented are complex. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156. This case is based on a discrimination claim. I see no evidence in the record that would suggest that plaintiff is unable to comprehend the issues involved and to present these effectively. I am not persuaded that the legal issues are particularly complex and ...