Wilson v. Boyd, 17-cv-07943 (SDW)(SCM). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20180604993
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 31, 2018
Latest Update: May 31, 2018
Summary: LETTER OPINION-ORDER STEVE MANNION , Magistrate Judge . Dear Litigants: This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Shamar Wilson's ("Mr. Wilson") Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel. 1 The Court has reviewed Mr. Wilson's Motion and for the reasons set forth herein it is denied. This Court denied Mr. Wilson's previous motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel 2 after analyzing the Tabron 3 factors. Mr. Wilson's second motion to appoint pro bono counsel do
Summary: LETTER OPINION-ORDER STEVE MANNION , Magistrate Judge . Dear Litigants: This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Shamar Wilson's ("Mr. Wilson") Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel. 1 The Court has reviewed Mr. Wilson's Motion and for the reasons set forth herein it is denied. This Court denied Mr. Wilson's previous motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel 2 after analyzing the Tabron 3 factors. Mr. Wilson's second motion to appoint pro bono counsel doe..
More
LETTER OPINION-ORDER
STEVE MANNION, Magistrate Judge.
Dear Litigants:
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff Shamar Wilson's ("Mr. Wilson") Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel.1 The Court has reviewed Mr. Wilson's Motion and for the reasons set forth herein it is denied.
This Court denied Mr. Wilson's previous motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel2 after analyzing the Tabron3 factors. Mr. Wilson's second motion to appoint pro bono counsel does not provide any new information that would change the Court's analysis. Here, Mr. Wilson repeats the same arguments. Because Mr. Wilson's motion is duplicative of his prior motion,4 the Court denies this motion for the same reasons it outlined in its Letter Order5 on Mr. Wilson's first motion.
The Court is, as always, sympathetic to any disadvantages of the parties that come before it. Accordingly, the Court will closely monitor the considerations raised by Mr. Wilson's Motion for Pro Bono Counsel throughout case management and, as the case moves forward, it may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel sua sponte should any of the above discussed considerations change.6
As the Tabron factors weigh against appointment for Mr. Wilson's first motion, the Court will deny Mr. Wilson's second motion as well.
The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this decision to Mr. Wilson.
IT SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. (ECF Docket Entry No. ("D.E.") 18, Pl.'s Mot. ).
2. (D.E. 10, Order, December 22, 2017).
3. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 1993).
4. (D.E. 4,Pl.'s Mot.).
5. (D.E. 10, Order, December 22, 2017).
6. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156; Christy, 216 F. Supp. 2d at 406.
Source: Leagle
