Reese et al v. American Automobile Association Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARY A. REESE; HONESTY L.
TRUTH,
§
§
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-01578-S (BT)
§
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, INC.; RAAMS CLUB
SERVICES,
§
§
§
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 5, 2026, pro se plaintiffs Mary A. Reese and Honestly L. Truth
filed a motion asking that the Court appoint them counsel on appeal (ECF No. 17).
For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
There is no automatic right to the appointment of counsel in a civil
case. F.T.C. v. Assail, Inc., 410 F.3d 256, 267 (5th Cir. 2005). A federal court has
considerable discretion in determining whether to appoint counsel. Branch v.
Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). But counsel should be appointed in civil
actions only in exceptional cases. Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th
Cir. 1982). The decision to appoint counsel is based “on many factors, including
the type and complexity of the case; the petitioner’s ability to adequately present
and investigate h[er] case; the presence of evidence which largely consists of
conflicting testimony so as to require skill in presentation of evidence and in cross-
Case 3:25-cv-01578-S-BT Document 18 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
examination; and the likelihood that appointment will benefit the petitioner, the
court, and the defendants by ‘shortening the trial and assisting in a just
determination.’ ” Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th
Cir. 1991) (quoting Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213).
Plaintiffs have not shown exceptional circumstances warranting court-
appointed counsel at this time. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that appointed counsel is
necessary because they are eligible to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Mot. at 2.
The Court never granted Plaintiffs IFP status—instead dismissing this action
because Plaintiffs failed to either pay the fee or file a proper IFP motion. See Reese
v. Am. Auto. Ass’n Inc., 2025 WL 2582904, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2025)
(Rutherford, J.), rec. adopted, 2025 WL 2578245 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2025). But
even if the Court had granted Plaintiffs IFP status, this alone would not warrant
the appointment of counsel. See Lukens v. Louisiana, 2021 WL 11086220, at *1
(W.D. La. Nov. 3, 2021) (“Civil complainants do not have an automatic right to
appointed counsel, even if demonstrably indigent.”) (emphasis added)
(citing Brown v. Tarrant County, Texas, 985 F.3d 489, 499 (5th Cir.
2021); Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007)).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to appoint them counsel is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
January 13, 2026. _________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01578-S-BT Document 18 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>