United States District Court, D. New Jersey
C. MANNION United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Reno
E. Mayoral's (“Mr. Mayoral”) Motion to
Appoint Pro Bono Counsel. The Court has reviewed Mr.
Mayoral's motion and for the reasons set forth herein it
Court denied Mr. Mayoral's previous motion for the
appointment of pro bono counsel. In that denial,
the Court discussed the Tabron factors, which are:
(1) the plaintiff's ability to present his case; (2) the
complexity of the legal issues involved; (3) the extent of
factual discovery and the 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 the plaintiff can afford counsel on
his or her own behalf.
it noted that the Court was sympathetic to Mr. Mayoral's
disadvantages, the Court found the factors to weigh against
appointment. With respect to the first factor, the Court
noted that “lack of formal legal training alone, does
not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant
appointment.” With respect to the second factor, the
Court found that the legal issues in this case were not
difficult, complex, or novel. In fact, Mr. Mayoral states,
“the ultimate legal issues are not complex, ” in
his first Motion for Pro Bono Counsel. With respect to
the third factor, the Court noted that “nothing in the
record indicates that Mr. Mayoral's pro se
status inhibits him from conducting
discovery.” With respect to the fourth factor, the
Court explained that based on the initial pleadings, this
case does not appear to be a swearing match, therefore it is
not likely to turn on credibility
Mayoral's present motion addresses only the first, fifth,
and sixth factors. As to the first factor, the difficulty of
the legal issues is not overly complex and a lack of legal
education alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for
appointment of counsel. Mr. Mayoral lists a number of
situations with which he may have difficulty without legal
knowledge, none of which demonstrate an inability to present
his case under Tabron. The Court also noted that
the fifth factor weighed against Mr. Mayoral because the case
did not seem to depend on expert testimony but rather, given
the allegations, the facts deduced. Vague allegation as to
requiring some kind of expert witness are not sufficient for
appointment of counsel. As to the sixth factor, he points to
financial strain relating to his head-of-household status and
ailing wife. General familial difficulties, however,
do not sufficiently indicate an inability to afford counsel.
Tabron factors continue to weigh against appointment
at this time, Mr. Mayoral's motion is
 (ECF Docket Entry No.
(“D.E.”) 17, Pl.'s Mot.).
 (D.E. 8, Order).
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147,
156 (3d Cir. ...