Chronicles v. Loyola University New Orleans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA CHRONICLES
VERSUS
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS
CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER: 25-2211
SECTION: “I” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Appoint Counsel (rec. doc. 13) filed by Plaintiff Joshua
Chronicles (“Plaintiff”). The original motion (rec. doc. 11) has been superseded by Plaintiffs
amended Motion to Appoint Counsel filed on November 11, 2025. (Rec. doc. 13). Having
reviewed the pleading and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
I. Background
On October 29, 2025, pro se and in forma pauperis (rec. doc. 3) Plaintiff, Joshua
Chronicles filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI, Title IX, and the First Amendment,
arising from retaliation, racial and religious discrimination, and procedural due process
violations by Loyola University New Orleans (“Loyola”) personnel. (Rec. doc. 1). Plaintiff is a
third-year law student at Loyola and claims to currently experience suspension from Loyola
University, retaliation for protected religious expression, racial and religious discrimination,
and sever exacerbation of service-connected PTSD and related symptoms.1
Much of the Complaint centers around an incident that occurred on or about
September 28, 2025, where Plaintiff claims he drafted emails intended for his personal
church email account. (Rec. doc. 13). He further alleges that these drafts were never sent to
1 Plaintiff has further filed a Notice of Continuing Harm and Urgent Request for Expedited Consideration of
Motion to Appoint Counsel (rec. doc. 12) and a Notice of Continuing Harm and Renewed Request to Preserve
Status Quo Pending Appointment of Counsel (rec. doc. 14). A mere filing of a notice is not a motion or a cause
of action upon which this Court can grant relief or issue a substantive ruling,
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Loyola but were accessed by unauthorized Loyola personal and altered for disciplinary
proceedings. (Id.). Prior to these events, Plaintiff reported faculty misconduct, including
sexual assault, racial discrimination, and inappropriate conduct. (Id.). He claims these
protected reports led to retaliation through manipulation of digital records and disciplinary
actions. (Id.). A disciplinary hearing was held on October 17, 2025, in which Plaintiff
contends he was denied the ability to record the proceeding, had key exculpatory evidence
excluded or altered, and was sanctioned in retaliation for protected speech and reporting
misconduct (Id.). As a result of this administrative hearing, Plaintiff was found responsible
for multiple alleged violations and assigned a one-year suspension, despite being five
months from graduation. (Rec. doc. 1).
In Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel (rec. doc 13), he requests
appointment of counsel due to the legal complexity of his case, the constitutional issues, and
Plaintiff’s current medical and psychological limitations. (Rec. doc. 13). Plaintiff seeks
appointment of an attorney from the Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Pro Bono Panel to
represent him. (Id.).
II. Law and Analysis
The Court’s power to “appoint counsel” is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which
provides that the “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” Plaintiff has neither a constitutional nor an automatic right to appointed counsel in
a civil case. See Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1309 (5th Cir. 1977). Unlike a
criminal defendant, an indigent civil rights litigant, even if currently incarcerated, does not
have a right to appointed counsel absent “exceptional circumstances.” See Norton v. E.U.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 1997); Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Cir. 1994); Vitug v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., Civ. A. No. 01-3297, 2002 WL 1216023 (E. D. La.
June 4, 2002). Indeed, the federal court has considerable discretion in determining whether
to make such an appointment in a civil case. See Salmon v. Corpus Christi Indep. School Dist.,
911 F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel in such a
case if doing so would advance the proper administration of justice. See Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982); Salmon, 911 F.2d at 1166. The plaintiff bears the
burden of persuasion as to the necessity of such an appointment. See Caston, 556 F.2d at
1310.
The evidence which must be adduced includes
(1) plaintiff’s indigence and
(2) efforts made to secure counsel.
However, these are bare minimum threshold considerations. Additionally, the Court
should consider the following factors:
(a) the type and complexity of the case;
(b) whether the indigent is capable of presenting his case adequately;
(c) whether he is in a position to investigate his case adequately; and
(d) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as
to require skill in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination.
Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992); Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213. The Court
also considers whether appointment of counsel would be of service to the court and the
defendant by sharpening the issues in the case. Id.
This Court granted Plaintiff pauper status, and he is thus indigent. (Rec. doc. 3).
Further, Plaintiff has indicated he made an effort to obtain private counsel from Lento Law
Firm, Fire Legal Network, and Southeast Louisiana Legal Services on November 5, 6, and 7
respectively. (Rec. doc. 14). Plaintiff claims all inquiries declined his request for legal services
due to case complexity and Plaintiff’s indigence. (Id.). Further, Plaintiff argues this case
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 5

4
involves overlapping, complex claims such as first amendment retaliation, Title VI and Title
IX discrimination, § 1983 constitutional violations, and unauthorized access and spoliation
of digital evidence, and procedural due-process violations in disciplinary proceedings. (Rec.
doc. 13). Plaintiff additionally points to the promotion of judicial efficiency explaining that
appointed counsel can manage discovery, streamline legal argumentation, ensure adherence
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and aid the Court in efficient adjudication. (Id.).
Lastly, Plaintiff claims he faces time-sensitive educational deadlines, bar exam eligibility
concerns, and worsening medical conditions, which create an urgent need to preserve rights
and evidence. (Id.).
While the Court appreciates Plaintiffs efforts in presenting further considerations
for the appointment of counsel, it is not appropriate to do so at this time. Plaintiff is a
third-year law student and thus has a heightened understanding of the law compared to
the general public. So far, Plaintiff has been able to file a complaint, motions, and notices
while being a pro se litigant. Although some of the legal issues allegedly at issue may be
complex areas of law, the Plaintiff has the burden of working up those claims based on
his own personal experiences. Additionally, the Plaintiff has taken Federal Civil
Procedure, Constitutional Law, and Legal Writing courses while enrolled in law school.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume Plaintiff knows how to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rules. The Pro Se Unit for this Court encourages the revision of the
handbook titled “Representing Yourself in Federal District Court” which provides
information regarding jurisdiction and venue, motion practice, discovery, and preparation
for trial.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 5

5
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel (rec. doc. 13) is
DENIED at this time and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (rec. doc. 11) is
DENIED as MOOT. After further development in this case should circumstances arise making
the appointment of counsel clearer, the Plaintiff reserves the right to move for the Court to
do so.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2025.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November	25th
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 16 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 5