Kisliuk v. City of Fort Bragg
- Robert Illman
- 1:24-cv-03440
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Kisliuk v. City of Fort Bragg, Judge Illman denied Kisliuk’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because he did not show exceptional circumstances.
Daniel Kisliuk’s request for a court-appointed lawyer in his civil case was denied without prejudice; the underlying claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Kisliuk v. City of Fort Bragg, Daniel Kisliuk asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil case.
Kisliuk cited his indigence, lack of discovery experience, mental-health challenges, concern about opposing counsel, and unsuccessful efforts to find free legal help. The court said that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer and that appointed counsel is allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
Judge Robert M. Illman denied the motion without prejudice. He found that it was too early to assess Kisliuk’s likelihood of success, but that Kisliuk had presented several claims and appeared able to understand the relevant law and manage the case. The court found no evidence that his anxiety or depression prevented him from pursuing the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Kisliuk v. City of Fort Bragg · No. 1:24-cv-03440
- Robert Illman
- July 29, 2025
Background
Daniel Kisliuk moved for appointment of counsel. He said he was indigent, that his claims had been found plausible, that the opposing parties had lawyers whom he feared were not forthcoming, that he lacked experience with discovery, that he experienced some degree of depression and anxiety, and that his efforts to obtain free legal representation had been unsuccessful.
Legal standard
The court explained that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot force—a lawyer to represent a litigant who is proceeding without paying filing fees. Such a request is appropriate only in “exceptional circumstances.” The court evaluates the likelihood of success on the merits and whether the plaintiff can explain his claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that appointed counsel is needed.
Court’s analysis
The court said it was too early to evaluate Kisliuk’s likelihood of success. However, it found that he had successfully explained several claims and appeared to understand the law involved. Those circumstances indicated that the case was not too complex for him to pursue without counsel.
The court acknowledged that a lawyer would be helpful with discovery but said that helpfulness alone was not the legal test. Kisliuk had to show that the claims were so complex that he could not explain his positions. The court found that he had not made that showing.
The court also considered Kisliuk’s anxiety and depression. It found no evidence that those conditions prevented him from pursuing the lawsuit. Because Kisliuk appeared to understand the relevant law and was managing the litigation fairly well, the court concluded that his mental-health challenges did not create exceptional circumstances.
Disposition
Judge Robert M. Illman denied Kisliuk’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The court stated that later developments in the case or changes in Kisliuk’s health could affect whether exceptional circumstances exist. It also directed him to resources for people representing themselves, including the Northern District of California’s handbook addressing discovery and discovery disputes.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.