United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Norman, Plaintiff Pro Se.
Honorable Jerome B. Simandle, Judge.
the Court is plaintiff Kevin Norman's
("Plaintiff") December 18, 2018 Motion to Appoint
Pro Bono Counsel ("Plaintiff s Motion") .
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's
Motion without prejudice.
initiated this matter on December 9, 2016 with a civil rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Camden
County Correctional Facility ("CCCF") and Captain
Carla Taylor and Warden David Owens (Taylor and Owens
referred to as "the Individual Defendants") for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (D.E.
1.) On October 20, 2017, this Court dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's claims against defendant CCCF and proceeded
Plaintiff's claims against the Individual Defendants.
(D.E. 4; D.E. 5.)
the Individual Defendants answered the Complaint, Plaintiff
moved on November 20, 2017 for appointment of pro
bono counsel. (D.E. 7.) On November 29, 2017, Magistrate
Judge Ann Marie Donio denied Plaintiff's request without
prejudice. (D.E. 11 ("[T]he Court finds that an
appointment of pro bono counsel would be premature
at this stage").)
December 19, 2017, the Individual Defendants filed an Answer
to the Complaint. (D.E. 15.) Thereafter, the parties
participated in several scheduling conferences before Judge
November 13, 2018, the Individual Defendants moved for
summary judgment. (D.E. 22.) On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff
filed opposition to their summary judgment motion and
requested further extension of time. (D.E. 25.) That same
day, he filed his Motion To Appoint Pro Bono Counsel
(D.E. 26), which the Court now considers in the instant
persons raising civil rights claims have no absolute right to
counsel. See Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57
(3d Cir. 1997). As a threshold matter, there must be some
merit in fact or law to the claims the plaintiff is
attempting to assert. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993). If the court finds that it does, the
court should consider the following factors: (1) the
plaintiff's ability to present his or her own case; (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 investigation; (4) the amount a
case is likely to turn on credibility determinations; (5)
whether the case will require the testimony of expert
witnesses; and (6) whether the plaintiff can attain and
afford counsel on his own behalf. See Id. at 155-56,
157 n.5; see also Cuevas v. United States, 422
Fed.Appx. 142, 144-45 (3d Cir. 2011) (reiterating the
Tabron factors). The Tabron list of factors
is not exhaustive, nor is a single factor determinative.
Parham, 126 F.3d at 458.
Court permitted the Plaintiff's Complaint to proceed
against the Individual Defendants when it performed sua
sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (D.E.
4; D.E. 5), there ...