Chronicles v. Loyola University New Orleans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA CHRONICLES
VERSUS
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER: 25-2211
SECTION: “I” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Appointment of
Counsel (rec. doc. 18) filed by pro se and in forma pauperis (rec. doc. 3) Plaintiff Joshua
Chronicles (“Plaintiff”). Having reviewed the pleading and the case law, the Court rules as
follows.
I. Background
On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff 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 then filed an Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel (rec. doc 13)
requesting appointment of counsel due to the alleged legal complexity of his case, the
constitutional issues, and Plaintiff’s current medical and psychological limitations. (Rec. doc.
13).
This Court denied Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel while reserving his
right to raise this request at a later time. (Rec. doc. 16). The Court explained that should
circumstances arise after further development in this case making the appointment of
counsel clearer, Plaintiff reserved the right to move for the Court to do so. (Id.).
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 38 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Three days later, Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration. (Rec. doc. 18). He
claims reconsideration is warranted due to new circumstances, lack of considering material
facts, and due to the interests of justice. (Id.).
II. Law and Analysis
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide specifically for motions for
reconsideration. Cressionnie v. Hample, 184 F. App'x 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2006); Shepherd v.
Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). Whether analyzed under Rule 54(b), Rule
59(e) or Rule 60(b), motions to reconsider “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Waltman v.
Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989). They are not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments. Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159
(5th Cir. 1990). When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than
mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and
resources and should not be granted. Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Downs
Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002).
Plaintiff has not established that reconsideration is proper. He has misconstrued the
Courts order (rec. doc. 18) stating that reconsideration may be warranted only after further
development in this case. There has been no further development. Plaintiff has not provided
the Court with any additional information that has not already been considered. Relevant
motions that may warrant reconsideration such as Plaintiffs Motion for Ada/Rehabilitation
Act Accommodations and Request to File Medical Documents Under Seal (Rec. doc. 17) and
the Motion to Seal Prior and Future Medical, Disability, and VA-related Filings (Rec. doc. 20)
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 38 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 3

3
have been dismissed as premature. (Rec. doc. 36). Therefore, no new circumstances
have arisen for the Court's review.
As this Court has previously explained, there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel
in a civil case, so the court may not appoint counsel as a matter of course or ordinary practice.
Hadd v, LSG-Sky Chefs, 272 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001). Counsel should be appointed only
upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances” based on a consideration of the type and
complexity of the case, the litigant's ability to investigate and present the case adequately,
and the level of skill required to present the evidence. Encalade v. Biggs, 2023 WL 7398221
(E.D. La. Oct. 12, 2023). The Court has already taken these factors into consideration with
its order denying appointment. (See rec. doc. 16). With no further development in the case,
reconsideration is not proper at this time.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying
Appointment of Counsel (rec. doc. 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to re-
urge his request after completion of the Court’s review of Plaintiffs ADA medical
documentation.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2024.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8th	December
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 38 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 3