Daniel Fleischman v. Randall Seth Richey, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02479
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DANIEL FLEISCHMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-2479-WFJ-TGW

RANDALL SETH RICHEY, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

ORDER Plaintiff Daniel Fleischman, proceeding pro se, requests appointment of counsel as an ADA accommodation. (Doc. 18) Mr. Fleishman also requests “flexible” compliance with procedural rules and deadlines and to appear remotely at all court appearances. (Id.). A plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). However, a court may, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff in “exceptional circumstances.” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996). The determination of whether exceptional circumstances exist is committed to the district court’s discretion. Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320. Exceptional circumstances may exist when the facts or legal issues are “so complex as to require the 1 assistance of a trained practitioner.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Mr. Fleishman has not identified any exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel. See Brown v. John Deere Prods., Inc., 460

F. App’x 908, 909 (11th Cir. 2012) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion to refuse to appoint counsel where facts and legal issues in complaint alleging discrimination were neither novel nor complex); Wood v. Briarwinds Condo. Ass’n Bd. of Dirs., 369 F. App’x 1, 5 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding that

district court did not abuse its discretion to refuse to appoint counsel where plaintiff failed to establish any exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel); Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320 (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion to refuse to appoint counsel where plaintiff’s claims

were straightforward and the case was “not so unusual”). In addition, although pro se pleadings are held to a less strict standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, pro se litigants must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Middle District of

Florida. See Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation and citation omitted). These rules will not be relaxed for Mr. Fleishman, and he may not appear remotely unless specifically authorized to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for ADA accommodations of 2 appointment of counsel, remote access, and flexible filing procedures (Doc. 18) is DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 27, 2026. Aranda Apne (he Sang, AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge