Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Two Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

November 5, 2007

JEREMY JOSEPH DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TWO UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patty Shwartz United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter having come before the Court by way of plaintiff's third motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel, filed on October 2, 2007, Docket Entry No. 17;*fn1

and, on May 7, 2007, the plaintiff having filed an initial motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel, Pl. First Mot. Pro Bono Counsel [Docket Entry No. 2];*fn2

and, on July 10, 2007, the plaintiff having filed a second motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel, Docket Entry No. 11, and a submitted a letter dated July 18, 2007, regarding (1) his request for appointment of counsel; and (2) motion for the production of documents and default, Docket Entry No. 12;*fn3

and the Honorable Faith S. Hochberg having denied the plaintiff's first motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice because she found that: (1) the plaintiff's claims did not involve complex issues of law or fact; (2) the plaintiff's incarceration does not impede his ability to conduct discovery in preparation for trial; (3) the plaintiff is articulate and able to prepare and present his case coherently; (4) expert testimony is not essential to the presentation of plaintiff's case; (5) it is not apparent the plaintiff's case will rest on credibility determinations; and (6) the only fact weighing in favor of appoint the plaintiff counsel is his indigence, Opinion, May 16, 2007 at 3-4 [Docket Entry No. 3];

and the Court having considered the plaintiff's instant application;*fn4

and the Court noting that it has broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint pro bono counsel to represent indigent litigants; see Parham v. Johnson 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997);

and it appearing that a court may grant a properly filed application for the appointment of pro bono counsel if the plaintiff's claims have some "merit in fact and law," Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002) and upon consideration of the following non- exhaustive list of factors:

1. the plaintiff's ability to present his own case;

2. the difficulty of the particular legal issues;

3. the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue investigation;

4. the plaintiff's capacity to retain counsel on his own behalf;

5. the extent to which a case is likely to turn on credibility ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.