The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patty Shwartz United States Magistrate Judge
This matter having come before the Court by way of plaintiff's motion, filed on May 26, 2009 for appointment of pro bono counsel;*fn1
and the Court having considered plaintiff's application;*fn2
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 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 the Court further being required to consider 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 determinations; and
6. whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses.
Id.; Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158 (3d Cir. 1993) (also known as the Tabron factors);
and plaintiff having previously applied pro bono counsel on July 14, 2008, July 28, 2008, September 25, 2008, and March 9, 2009, ...