Fleischman

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