2The United States District Court (Arizona) has issued findings that Huminski is unable to properly, coherently and adequately represent himself in the U.S. Courts and that Huminski
sfilings are confusing, unintelligible, repetitive and improper.In deciding whether legal counsel should be provided, the Court typically considers,among other factors,
the merits of Plaintiff’s
claims and the complexity of the issues presented.See Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989). It is apparent that legal assistance andappointment of counsel is required in order to avoid prejudicing Huminski
s rights in accordancewith Holt.The court must consider certain factors in determining whether to appoint counsel.Snelling v. Covington, No.Civ.A.96-5456, 1996 WL 515904, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 1996)(listing factors to consider in determining whether to appoint counsel in ADA case). Specifically,the court must consider: (1) the merits of the plaintiff's claim in fact and in law; (2) the plaintiff'sability to present his or her case; (3) the difficulty of the particular legal issues; (4) the degree towhich factual investigation will be required and the ability of the indigent plaintiff to pursue suchan investigation; and (5) whether the case is likely to turn on credibility determinations. Id.(citing Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-56 (3d Cir. 1993)). The appointment of counsel for Huminski is proper generally and certainly as an ADA accommodation.Congress in the Amended ADA asserts that the courts and Federal Government shouldenforce broadly, not attempt to defeat narrowly the ADA law. See § 12101 of the ADA asamended. Appointment of counsel is consistent with the ADA.A significant portion of Huminski
s disabilities arose from the illegal conduct of theDefendants set forth in detail in the accompanying Motion to Sever and Stay, which, Huminskiasserts with the same force and effect as if more set forth herein.Dated at Bonita Springs, Florida this 7
day of October, 2013.