Filho v. Mercy Housing California XVII, LP
- Joseph Spero
- 3:24-cv-03316
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Filho v. Mercy Housing, Judge Spero denied Roberto Filho’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because he did not show exceptional circumstances.
Roberto Filho’s request for a court-appointed lawyer was denied without prejudice. The order states that he may renew the request at a later stage of the case.
What happened
Filho v. Mercy Housing California XVII, LP concerns Roberto Filho’s request for a lawyer to represent him in his civil case. He was proceeding without a lawyer and said that his traumatic brain injury and cognitive disorder made it difficult to continue the case.
The court explained that people in civil cases generally do not have a right to a court-appointed lawyer. It considered both whether Filho appeared likely to succeed and whether he could explain his claims without a lawyer given the legal issues. The court found that his impairments could make explaining his claims difficult, but the current record did not show that he was likely to succeed.
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the request without prejudice because the required exceptional circumstances were not shown. The order said Filho may renew the request later, after the record develops and the court rules on the defendant’s summary judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Filho v. Mercy Housing California XVII, LP · No. 3:24-cv-03316
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Roberto Filho, who was proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, asked the court to appoint counsel because of his traumatic brain injury and cognitive brain disorder. The court acknowledged that these impairments might significantly challenge his ability to maintain the action.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may appoint a lawyer for a person who cannot afford counsel when “exceptional circumstances” exist. The court evaluated two factors together: the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to present claims without a lawyer in light of the complexity of the legal issues. Neither factor alone controls.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the second factor arguably favored appointment because Filho’s cognitive impairment might make it difficult for him to explain his claims. However, the court said that the current record did not make it apparent that Filho was likely to prevail on the merits. Considering both factors, the court concluded that the exceptional-circumstances requirement was not met.
Disposition
The order denied the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It stated that Filho may renew the request later, after the record has been further developed and the court has ruled on the defendant’s summary judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.