Lopez v. Wetzel, 3:21-cv-01819

Six pro se state prisoners filed a civil-rights action alleging prolonged, severe solitary confinement; the case was referred to the magistrate judge for case management.
Plaintiff George Lopez filed two motions seeking appointment of counsel; an earlier request had already been denied (Doc. 128).
The court evaluated the requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Parham/Tabron framework for appointing counsel to indigent civil litigants.
The magistrate judge found the legal issues discrete, Lopez capable of pursuing his claims despite reported glaucoma, and no threshold determination on arguable merit had yet been made.
Lopez sought counsel, in part, to assist with discovery costs; the court explained it lacks statutory authority to finance discovery or appoint counsel solely to shift discovery expenses.
The docket showed representational problems: Lopez filed motions on behalf of co-plaintiffs and several co-plaintiffs objected; the court ordered plaintiffs to show cause why claims should not be severed and denied appointment of counsel without prejudice pending further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	Lopez requests appointed counsel to assist litigation	No specific defense; court applies discretionary factors and resource constraints	Denied without prejudice; appointment premature pending merits/severance review
Whether counsel should be appointed to avoid/shift discovery costs	Lopez seeks counsel partly to avoid discovery expenses	Court: no statutory authority to fund discovery or appoint counsel to shift costs	Denied: § 1915 does not authorize financing discovery or appointment for that purpose
Whether Lopez can adequately represent his claims given medical issues/complexity	Lopez cites glaucoma and need for legal assistance	Court finds issues discrete and Lopez has shown ability to litigate	Denied: plaintiff appears capable to present his case at this time
Whether Lopez may seek relief on behalf of co-plaintiffs and effect of representational conflict	Lopez filed motions affecting fellow plaintiffs	Co-plaintiffs object; court notes pro se prisoners cannot represent others	Court ordered show cause on severance; appointment deferred until representation/scope resolved

Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454 (3d Cir. 1997) (sets threshold "some merit" requirement and outlines factors for appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (details discretionary factors and practical restraints on appointing volunteer counsel)
Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1989) (underscores scarcity/value of volunteer lawyer time and caution against indiscriminate appointments)
Ebenhart v. Power, 309 F. Supp. 660 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (expresses doubt that § 1915 authorizes appropriation of government funds for discovery expenses)
Toliver v. Community Action Comm'n to Help the Econ., 613 F. Supp. 1070 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (refuses to order repayment/advancement of discovery costs for IFP plaintiff)
Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., [citation="160 F. App'x 249"] (3d Cir. 2005) (holds a pro se prisoner may not litigate claims on behalf of fellow inmates)