Thompson v. Howard et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RICHARD BRIAN THOMPSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 25-2497-KHV-ADM
)
LAURA HOWARD, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Richard Brian Thompson filed this case pro se, alleging defendants “violated
federal disability law and the Constitution by refusing to adjudicate federal claims, terminating the
[Individualized 	Plan 	for 	Employment] 	without 	the 	federally 	required 	process, 	denying
accommodations, and retaliating when [he] asserted his rights.” 	(ECF 1-2, at 15.) 	This matter
comes before the court on Thompson’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF 32.)
For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.
In civil actions such as this one, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Durre
v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),
however, a district court “has discretion to request an attorney to represent a litigant who is
proceeding in forma pauperis.” Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam). In deciding whether to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent party, the court must
consider the “totality of the circumstances.” McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 839 (10th Cir.
1985). When a party has disabilities that significantly impair his ability to present his case, such
“special circumstances” are factors that weigh in favor of appointment of counsel. 	Rucks v.
Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 837). The “district
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 42 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 4

2
court is vested with considerable discretion in the matter of appointment of counsel.” McCarthy,
753 F.2d at 839.
Thompson 	is 	proceeding 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	(ECF 	5), 	and 	after 	considering 	the
circumstances Thompson describes in his renewed motion, as well as his other filings in the case,
the court finds it prudent to appoint counsel to represent him. Thompson’s motion states that he
“is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, Selective Mutism, and a
Speech Fluency Disorder (stuttering), along with other psychiatric and cognitive impairments
recognized by the Kansas Department for Children and Families.” (ECF 32, at 1.) He describes
his disabilities, and their effect on his ability to present his case, as follows:
Bipolar Disorder impairs Plaintiff’s ability to maintain cognitive
stability, regulate stress, and sustain the extended organizational
work required in federal litigation. Cycles of depression and
hypomania diminish Plaintiff’s ability to manage deadlines, process
complex legal arguments, and respond coherently to adversarial
briefs.
Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia causes acute physiological
and cognitive disruption in public, crowded, or high-stimulus
environments—precisely the settings associated with hearings,
conferences, and adversarial exchanges. The disorder directly limits
Plaintiff’s capacity to appear in court, engage in live argument, or
function effectively during adversarial interactions.
Selective Mutism, an anxiety-related communication disorder,
produces involuntary cessation of speech in high-stress situations,
particularly when multiple individuals are speaking or when the
adversarial 	environment 	heightens 	anxiety. 	In 	such 	moments,
Plaintiff 	becomes 	unable 	to 	speak 	or 	respond 	verbally. 	This
condition 	severely 	restricts 	Plaintiff’s 	ability 	to 	engage 	with
opposing counsel, answer the Court’s questions, clarify factual
issues, or participate meaningfully in oral advocacy.
Stuttering, a recognized speech impairment under the ADA,
further impedes verbal communication—especially under stress or
time pressure.
(Id. at 2.)
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 42 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 4

3
In addition, Thompson’s filings reflect his challenges in complying with the court’s
procedural rules, which present the risk that his case might be dismissed on procedural grounds.
For example, Thompson’s complaint, including a “statement of claims” and a “supplement to
complaint,” is 84 pages (excluding exhibits). (ECF 1, 1-1, 1-2.) As a result, all defendants have
moved the court to dismiss the case for, among other reasons, violating FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)’s
requirement that the pleading contain a “short and plain statement” of entitlement to relief. (ECF
25, 26, 27.) And Thompson’s combined brief in support of his motion for summary judgment and
response to defendants’ motions to dismiss is 60 pages and includes 692 pages of exhibits. (ECF
30, 31.) 	On November 19, 2025, presiding U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil issued a
memorandum and order striking the brief for failure to comply with District of Kansas procedural
rules. (ECF 35, at 2 (citing D. Kan. R. 5.1(a), 7.1(d)(2)-(3), and 56.1(a)).) In response, Thompson
filed a motion for clarification of the memorandum and order, stating that he “cannot determine
how to submit corrected filings that comply with the Court’s expectations,” again requesting the
appointment of counsel, and requesting a suspension of his new deadline to respond to the motions
to dismiss. (ECF 38, at 1.) Judge Vratil sustained the motion in part by suspending the deadline
for Thompson to respond to the motions to dismiss until after the court decided the present renewed
motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF 39.)
While Thompson’s filings are cogent and suggest Thompson is intelligent, Thompson’s
disabilities persuade the court to exercise its discretion and appoint counsel in this particular
instance. 	By separate order, the court will appoint counsel. 	Therein, the court also will set a
deadline for counsel to respond to the pending motions to dismiss. Until that time, the response
deadline remains suspended.
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 42 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Thompson’s renewed motion to appoint counsel
(ECF 32) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 8, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 42 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 4