United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2025

Shamika Strickland v. Louis DeJoy

Shamika Strickland v. Louis DeJoy
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided October 21, 2025
Shamika Strickland v. Louis DeJoy

Trial Court Opinion

4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHAMIKA STRICKLAND, Case No. 25-cv-05212-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 10 LOUIS DEJOY, Defendant.

13 Before the Court is the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, filed October 14, 2025, by plaintiff Shamika Strickland, who proceeds pro se on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act.

16 Although the United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996), a district court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent party, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

19 Motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are, however, "granted only in exceptional circumstances." See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984).

21 In determining whether such circumstances exist, courts consider a number of factors, including the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

25 In the instant case, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

26 First, plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of her two claims.

27 In particular, a plaintiff cannot proceed against the federal government on a claim brought 1 defendant on a claim under the Rehabilitation Act unless such plaintiff first exhausts his or her administrative remedies, see Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003), and plaintiffs Complaint contains no allegation that she has done so. Second, plaintiff's Complaint, although perhaps lacking in some necessary detail, reflects her || ability to articulate the facts on which she bases her claims.

6 Accordingly, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is hereby DENIED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Q || Dated: October 21, 2025 INE M. CHESNEY 10 United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.