Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 21, 2025

Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:24-cv-01278
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Michael Devin Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, Judge Hixson denied Floyd’s motion for advisory or standby counsel because he was not eligible for pro bono counsel.

Who this affects

Michael Devin Floyd’s request for appointed advisory or standby counsel was denied; the order did not decide the underlying dispute with Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC.

What happened

In Michael Devin Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, Michael Devin Floyd asked the court to appoint advisory or standby counsel to help him during a bench trial scheduled for January 12, 2026.

Floyd said that his past difficulties with lawyers made him unwilling to have another lawyer represent him fully. The court referred him to the Federal Pro Bono Project to assess whether he qualified for appointed pro bono counsel.

The project determined that Floyd was not eligible for counsel, so the court could not appoint pro bono counsel. Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Floyd’s motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger · No. 3:24-cv-01278
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Oct. 21, 2025

Background

Michael Devin Floyd moved for appointment of advisory or standby counsel to assist him during a bench trial scheduled to begin on January 12, 2026. He stated that past struggles with every lawyer who had represented him prevented him from trusting another lawyer to represent his interests in the lawsuit.

Court’s action

The court referred Floyd to the Federal Pro Bono Project for an eligibility assessment. The court was later informed that, after meeting with Floyd, the project determined that he was not eligible for counsel.

Ruling

Because Floyd was not eligible for pro bono counsel, the court stated that it was unable to appoint such counsel and denied his motion. The court cited the general rule that a person usually has no right to counsel in a civil action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.