Strickland v. DeJoy

Background

Shamika Strickland filed a motion for appointment of counsel on October 14, 2025. The opinion says she was proceeding without a lawyer on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

Legal standard

The court explained that the Constitution does not require courts to appoint lawyers in ordinary civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court has discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent party, but civil motions for appointed counsel are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The court considered two relevant factors: the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain the claims in light of their legal complexity.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Strickland had not shown exceptional circumstances. First, it found that she had not shown a likelihood of success on her two claims. In particular, the court stated that a plaintiff bringing a Rehabilitation Act claim against the federal government must first exhaust administrative remedies, and it found that Strickland’s complaint did not allege that she had done so. Second, although the court said the complaint might lack some necessary detail, it found that the complaint showed Strickland could articulate the facts underlying her claims.

Disposition

The court denied Strickland’s motion for appointment of counsel. This order addressed only the request for appointed counsel; it did not resolve the ultimate merits of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act claims.