Luouxmont v. Steiner

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-08522
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FALKYN LUOUXMONT, Case No. 25-cv-08522-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 9 v. APPOINT COUNSEL

10 DAVID STEINER, Re: Dkt. No. 3 11 Defendant.

12 13 On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff Falkyn Luouxmont filed a request for appointed counsel, 14 stating he needs a court-appointed attorney “to formulate the complexities for me in this case 15 properly. The original appellate decision was flawed due to a misnamed claim and therefore is a 16 need to amend the original claim.” ECF No. 3. 17 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 18 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, a court may under “exceptional 19 circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants. Id. (citation omitted). “To obtain 20 appointment of pro bono counsel, a litigant must be proceeding in forma pauperis (‘IFP’) and lack 21 the financial resources to retain counsel.” Swapna v. Deshraj, 2017 WL 3721444, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 22 Aug. 29, 2017) (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (“a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ 23 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)”). “When 24 determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court considers ‘the likelihood of success 25 on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 26 complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 27 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Neither of these considerations is dispositive; rather, they 1 an indigent plaintiff must first make “‘a reasonably diligent effort to secure counsel.” Bailey v. 2 || Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (citing Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San 3 || Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1319 (9th Cir. 1981)). 4 At this early stage in the litigation, the likelihood of Plaintiffs success on the merits is 5 unclear, and he has sufficiently articulated his claims pro se. The issues do not appear to be 6 || unduly complex, and there is no indication that discovery in this action is so complex as to require 7 appointment of counsel. Further, the Court notes Plaintiff has brought cases in this District in the 8 past without seeking the assistance of counsel, see, e.g., Luouxmont v. Clum et al., 4:23-cv-04248- 9 HSG, and there is no indication he would be unable to do the same here. Plaintiffs request is 10 || therefore denied without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel should 11 circumstances so require. 12 Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by 5 13 || the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco. You may request an 14 appointment by emailing fedpro @sfbar.org or calling 415-782-8982. At the Legal Help Center, 15 you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not 16 || representation. More information is available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 3 17 Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s Handbook for Litigants S 18 Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, 19 including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office 20 || and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 7, 2025 24 Ly _ THOMAS S. HIXSON 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28