Watson et al v. Monumental Group et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RUSASENE WATSON, 	et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MONUMENTAL GROUP, 	et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-2194-ABA
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiffs have sued Monumental Group, an individual Monumental Group
employee, and the State of Maryland alleging various civil rights claims. ECF No. 13.
Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 9. In their motion,
Plaintiffs state that they “have diligently prepared and presented the complaint,
affidavits, and documentary evidence but cannot adequately represent themselves at
trial without counsel.” 	Id. 	at 1.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel.” The Court has previously granted Plaintiffs’
motion to proceed 	in forma pauperis. ECF No. 16. However, in general, indigent parties
lack a right to counsel in civil matters. 	Valcarcel v. ABM Indus./Diversico Indus., 383 F.
Supp. 3d 562, 564 (M.D.N.C. 2019) (“This is a civil case. As such, [Plaintiff] is not
constitutionally entitled to appointment of counsel.”). Instead, to be appointed counsel
under § 1915, “a plaintiff must show that his case is one with exceptional
circumstances.” 	Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987); 	see also Wilkins
v. Stone, Case No. 24-6971, 2025 WL 3252314, at *1 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025) (affirming a
district court’s denial of a motion to appoint counsel where the pro se party “had not
Case 1:25-cv-02194-ABA Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
shown exceptional circumstances”). “In considering a request for appointment of
counsel in its discretion, the court may consider a plaintiff’s financial ability to retain
counsel, the efforts of the plaintiff to retain counsel, the merits of the case, and whether
the plaintiff is capable of representing himself.” 	Valcarcel, 383 F. Supp. 3d at 565; 	see
also 	First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Borniva, Case No. 19-cv-3233-GJH, 2023 WL 1995410, at
*2 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2023) (“The question of whether [exceptional] circumstances exist in
a particular case hinges on the characteristics of the claim and the litigant.”) (quoting
Braude v. Vilnyanskaya, Case No. 17-cv-364-ELH, 2017 WL 2131855, at *1 (D. Md. May
17, 2017)).
Here, Plaintiffs have not made the necessary showing of exceptional
circumstances. They state that “[t]he case involves complex factual and legal questions”
and that they “cannot adequately represent themselves.” ECF No. 9 at 1. But Plaintiffs
have already filed multiple pleadings and motions, and they do not explain why they are
not capable of continuing to litigate the case in a similar manner. 	See Zeller v. Yiya
Zhou, Case No. 18-cv-2650-PWG, 2019 WL 2579412, at *1 n.1 (D. Md. June 24, 2019)
(“[Plaintiff] has not explained why he is unable to litigate this particular case on his
own. His motions and previous filings demonstrate his ability to present the legal and
factual basis of his claims or to secure assistance in doing so.”). Further, upon review of
the amended complaint and Plaintiffs’ other filings, the Court is not convinced that the
claims here are sufficiently complex to warrant the appointment of counsel. 	See Alston
v. Lewis, Case No. 10-CT-3032-FL, 2010 WL 4054461, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 2010)
(“The existence of exceptional circumstances depends upon ‘the type and complexity of
the case, and the abilities of the individuals bringing it.’”) (quoting 	Whisenant v. Yaum,
739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984)).
Case 1:25-cv-02194-ABA Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
In addition to their motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiffs have also submitted a
filing titled “Motion for Status and Motions to Expedite Ruling and Special
Appearance.” ECF No. 14 at 1. In this motion, Plaintiffs requested that the Court provide
an update on service and grant Plaintiffs injunctive relief that they had sought in their
amended complaint. 	Id. 	at 3; 	see also 	ECF No. 13 at 5 (requesting “[i]njunctive relief
against Monumental Group and its agents” without further explanation). Since this
motion, the Court directed the Clerk to issue summons, ECF No. 16, and summonses
were later returned as executed on all three Defendants, ECF No. 20. The next stage of
the case is for Defendants, if properly served, to submit an answer or response to the
complaint. 	See 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 9) is DENIED;
2. 	Plaintiffs’ motion to expedite ruling (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.
Date: 	February 12, 2026 	___________________
Adam B. Abelson
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02194-ABA Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3