United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LETTER OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL A. HAMMER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Robert
Faulkner's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [D.E. 2]. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
alleges that Defendants unlawfully terminated his employment
and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Complaint,
March 24, 2017, D.E. 1. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
after being incarcerated on March 15, 2016 for a charge that
was later dismissed, he was suspended on March 24, 2016.
Id. On April 4, 2016 Defendants terminated
Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was
unlawfully terminated based on his race. Id.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff was terminated because he
had been incarcerated for domestic violence and they have an
obligation to provide a safe and harassment free work
environment to all of their employees. Id.
Defendants contend that they gave Plaintiff one week to bring
in acquittal documentation for the domestic violence charge
but Plaintiff never returned. Id. Plaintiff seeks
$25, 368 in actual damages due to alleged lost wages, as well
as for pain and suffering. Id.
March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed this motion for pro bono
counsel [D.E. 2]. In his motion, Plaintiff argues that he is
entitled to appointed counsel because: (1) he cannot afford
to hire an attorney on his own; (2) the legal issues alleged
are too complex for him to understand; and (3) he lacks the
knowledge of the Rules of Evidence that is required for such
a complex legal issue. See Motion to Appoint Pro
Bono, March 27, 2017, D.E. 2.
civil cases, neither the Constitution nor any statute gives
civil litigants the right to appointed counsel. Parham v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997). District
courts, however, have broad discretion to determine whether
appointment of counsel is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). Montgomery v. Pinchack, 294 F.3d 492, 498
(3d Cir. 2002) (citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147,
153 (3d Cir. 1993)). Appointment of counsel may be made at
any point in the litigation, including sua sponte by
the Court. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498 (citing
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156).
Third Circuit, a court considers the framework established in
Tabron. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498-99.
Under the Tabron framework, the Court must first
assess “whether the claimant's case has some
arguable merit in fact and law.” Montgomery,
294 F.3d at 499 (citing Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155). If
the applicant's claim has some merit, the Court considers
the following factors:
(1) the plaintiff's ability to present his or her own
(2) the complexity of the legal issues;
(3) the degree to which factual investigation will be
necessary and the ability of the plaintiff to pursue such
(4) the amount a case is likely to turn on credibility
(5) whether the case will require the testimony of expert