Howard v. Crowley Maritime Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JONATHAN HOWARD
VERSUS
CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES,
INC., ET AL.
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-745
SECTION “N” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before me is Plaintiff Jonathan Howard’s oral Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, raised during the July 10, 2026, final pretrial conference. ECF No. 57. By Order dated
July 13, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a Memorandum in Support of the request
for appointment of counsel by July 21, 2026. ECF No. 58. He did not, and no defendant filed an
Opposition Memorandum. Neither did any party request oral argument in accordance with Local
Rule 78.1, and the Court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record and the applicable law, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointed
Counsel is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff Jonathan Howard, through counsel, filed this Jones Act
complaint seeking to recover for personal injuries, with an Amended Complaint filed on June 24,
2025. ECF Nos. 1, 10. On September 24, 2025, the Court scheduled trial for July 27, 2026. ECF
No. 18. On March 3, 2026, after participating in a settlement conference with the undersigned,
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, asserting a fundamental breakdown in the attorney-
client relationship and irreconcilable differences regarding case strategy and litigation decisions
that make continued representation untenable. ECF Nos. 27, 32, 32-1 at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00745-ASJ-DPC Document 72 Filed 07/23/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Judge St. John granted the motion to withdraw and gave Plaintiff 30 days within which to
retain new counsel. ECF Nos. 42-43. In that Order, Judge St. John explained the valuable
assistance attorneys provide and encouraged Plaintiff to attempt to retain counsel by “contacting
(1) the New Orleans office of the Louisiana State Bar Association regarding lawyer referrals (504-
525-7453); (2) Southeast Louisiana Legal Services (SLLS) (844-244-7871 or 504-529-1000);
(3) The Pro Bono Project (504-581-4043); (4) the Tulane Law School Law Clinic (504-865-5000);
and (5) the Loyola Law School Law Clinic (504-861-5590)” and consulting “internet resources
such as www.martindale.com” for helpful information. ECF No. 43. After Plaintiff failed to enroll
new counsel or notify the Court that he intended to proceed pro se, Judge St. John construed that
failure as an indication of his intent to represent himself. ECF No. 44.
At the July 10, 2026, final pretrial conference, Plaintiff asked that counsel be appointed to
represent him. ECF No. 57. Judge St. John treated that request as an oral motion. ECF No. 57.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Unlike criminal cases, a litigant has no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney in
a civil case.1 That said, appointment of counsel is authorized in certain situations, such as Title
VII claims or in forma pauperis cases.2 However, this is not a Title VII case, and Plaintiff is not
proceeding pursuant to § 1915.3 And even when demonstrably indigent, a plaintiff asserting civil
claim for damages is not entitled to appointed counsel as a matter of right.4
1 See F.T.C. v. Assail, Inc., 410 F.3d 256, 267 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is inapplicable
in civil cases.” (citations omitted)).
2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1).
3 Johnson v. Offshore Serv. Vessels, LLC, No. 24-2257, 2025 WL 3269418, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 2025) (citations
omitted); see also Nottingham v. Richardson, 499 F. App'x 368, 377 (5th Cir. 2012) (“Under § 1915, a court may
appoint counsel for plaintiffs proceedings in forma pauperis, but because Nottingham did not proceed in forma
pauperis, he is not entitled to counsel under § 1915.” (citing Gonzalez v. Carlin, 907 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1990))).
4 Thompson v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just., 67 F.4th 275, 283 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d
793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982))).
Case 2:25-cv-00745-ASJ-DPC Document 72 Filed 07/23/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Appointment of counsel does not occur as a matter of course or ordinary practice, even
under § 1915(e)(1).5 Rather, appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) requires the plaintiff to
establish 	“exceptional 	circumstances,”6 	and 	the 	appointment 	must 	“advance 	the 	proper
administration of justice.”7 Although the Fifth Circuit has declined to articulate a comprehensive
definition of exceptional circumstances,8 it has identified various factors that a court should
consider in determining whether exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel:
(1) the type and complexity of the case;9
(2) whether the indigent plaintiff is capable of adequately presenting the case;
(3) whether the indigent plaintiff is in a position to investigate and adequately
prepare the case;10
(4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony so as to
require skill in presentation of evidence and in cross-examination; and
(5) the likelihood that appointment will benefit the petitioner, the court, and the
defendants by shortening the trial and assisting in just determination.11
Similarly, in the Title VII context, courts consider
(1) the merits of the claims;
(2) the efforts taken by plaintiff to obtain counsel; and
(3) plaintiff's financial ability to retain counsel.12
The court also has the inherent authority to compel an attorney to represent a party when
exceptional 	circumstances 	exist 	and 	efforts 	to 	secure 	non-compulsory 	representation 	are
5 See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); see also Hadd v. LSG-Sky Chefs, 272
F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 353-54 (5th Cir. 2001)
(holding that there is no automatic right to appointment of counsel in civil rights cases)); Naranjo, 809 F.3d at 799
(citing Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 212).
6 See Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982); Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213.
7 Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1989).
8 Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213 (quoting Branch, 686 F.2d at 266).
9 “Every civil lawsuit is in some ways complex, but not every lawsuit warrants court appointed counsel. It is only
those extraordinarily complex cases that require such extraordinary measures.” LaBranche v. Nestor I LLC, No. 18-
8399, 2019 WL 3891555, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2019) (citing Hudson v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 441 F. App'x
291, 293 (5th Cir. 2011)).
10 “[T]he burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that, unique from other pro se litigants, he will have particular
difficulty in investigating and presenting his case such that his situation justifies the special benefit of having counsel
appointed to represent him.” Margin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 08-4605, 2009 WL 3673025, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 28,
2009).
11 Ulmer, 691 F.2d at 213; Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
12 Gonzalez, 907 F.2d at 580; Neal v. IAM Loc. Lodge 2386, 722 F.2d 247, 250 (5th Cir. 1984).
Case 2:25-cv-00745-ASJ-DPC Document 72 Filed 07/23/26 Page 3 of 5

4
unsuccessful.13 This is a power of last resort and should not be invoked unless all other options
have been exhausted.14 Before ordering mandatory or compelled representation, the court may
consider the merits of the claim, whether taking the case would subject an attorney to discipline,
plaintiff’s efforts to obtain counsel, plaintiff’s conduct toward previous counsel, whether an
attorney has good cause to decline, and any change in circumstances.15 	A reasonably diligent
attempt to secure counsel means, at a minimum, speaking to an attorney about the merits of the
case and pursuing a contingent fee arrangement.16
Plaintiff does not make any argument as to why counsel should be appointed, and he does
not identify any circumstances that bear on the relevant “exceptional circumstances” factors. He
does not demonstrate the inability to employ counsel,17 that this case is particularly complex or
technical, or that he is not in a position to investigate or prosecute the case. Similarly, Plaintiff
does not establish that presentation of this case entails conflicting testimony that requires skill in
presentation or cross-examination beyond that of the ordinary person. 	Further, the court may
consider Plaintiff’s prior counsel’s withdrawal based on failure to communicate and differing
views on strategy as well as Plaintiff’s failure to identify any efforts he took to secure replacement
private counsel. 	For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish that appointment of
counsel is appropriate in this case.
13 Naranjo, 809 F.3d at 804.
14 Id.; see also Byrd v. Lindsey, 736 F. App’x 465, 468 (5th Cir. 2018) (re-affirming inherent authority to appoint
counsel).
15 Naranjo, 809 F.3d at 805-06.
16 Weber v. Holiday Inn, 42 F. Supp. 2d 693, 698 (E.D. Tex. 1999); see also Smith v. Baton Rouge Radiology Grp.,
No. 12-400, 2013 WL 3246142, at *2 (M.D. La. June 24, 2013) (plaintiff failed to make diligent effort to obtain
counsel where she contacted several attorneys, but failed to “state whether or not she had inquired about the possibility
of a contingency fee agreement with any attorney”).
17 Plaintiff had counsel originally and presumably should be able to find counsel given the potential contingency
arrangement in this personal injury case.
Case 2:25-cv-00745-ASJ-DPC Document 72 Filed 07/23/26 Page 4 of 5

5
III. 	CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is not entitled to court-appointed counsel as no exceptional circumstances exist to
justify same. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the inability to obtain private counsel or the
efforts taken to obtain replacement counsel. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s oral Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of July, 2026.
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23rd
Case 2:25-cv-00745-ASJ-DPC Document 72 Filed 07/23/26 Page 5 of 5