# Fleischman

> District Court, M.D. Florida · January 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11272120

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel Fleischman v. Randall Seth Richey, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** January 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11272120

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- 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

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11272120. Public record. Not legal advice.