Chronicles v. Loyola University New Orleans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA CHRONICLES 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NUMBER: 25-2211
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS, ET AL. 	SECTION: “C” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Second Renewed Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel
(rec. doc. 59) filed by pro se and in forma pauperis Plaintiff Joshua Chronicles (“Plaintiff”).
Having reviewed the pleading and the applicable 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 alleged retaliation, racial and religious discrimination,
and procedural due process violations by Loyola University New Orleans (“Loyola”)
personnel. (Rec. doc. 1). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (rec. doc. 11)
and later filed an Amended Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Rec. doc 13). Plaintiff sought the
appointment of counsel due to the alleged legal complexity of his case, the Constitutional
issues, and his current medical and psychological limitations. (Rec. doc. 13).
This Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion as moot and denied Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion to Appoint Counsel while reserving to him his right to raise his request at a later time.
(Rec. doc. 16). 	The Court explained that should circumstances arise after further
development in this case warranting appointment of counsel warranted, Plaintiff retained
the right to so move the Court. (Id.).
Three days later, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. 	(Rec. doc. 18). 	He
claimed reconsideration was warranted due to new circumstances, lack of consideration of
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 69 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 5

2
material facts, and the interests of justice. (Id.). This Court denied Plaintiff’s motion with the
right to re-urge after completion of the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s ADA documentation.
(Rec. doc. 38).
Plaintiff now renews his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Eastern
District of Louisiana Civil Pro Bono Panel Resolution. (Rec. doc. 59). Plaintiff asserts that he
is a 100% totally- and permanently-disabled veteran with disabilities such as a traumatic
brain injury, chronic migraine, and service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder
(“PTSD”), that directly and materially impair his ability to manage complex litigation. (Id.).
II. 	Law and Analysis
“There is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases, and [courts] do not appoint
counsel unless the case presents extraordinary circumstances warranting an appointment.”
Hudson v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 441 F. App'x 291, 293 (5th Cir. 2011). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), the decision to appoint counsel is entirely within the court's discretion. Marquez
v. Woody, 440 F. App'x 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2011). Although “[n]o comprehensive definition of
exceptional circumstances is practical,” Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982), a
number of factors should be considered in ruling on requests to appoint counsel. In making
this decision, a court should, at a minimum, consider 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, Civ. A. no. 23-3283, 2023 WL 7398221, at *1 (E.D.
La. Oct. 12, 2023).
In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that his case
presents extraordinary circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. 	First, Plaintiff
has provided the Court with a medical opinion from a Primary Care Provider at the
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 69 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Department of Veterans Affairs Fort Polk Community Based Outpatient Clinic that describes
in detail his specific cognitive and functional limitations. (Rec. doc. 59-1). Plaintiff’s service-
related medical conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), and post-
traumatic migraine headaches have resulted in total and permanent disability. (Id.). The
letter specifically states that Plaintiff “may experience difficulty independently managing
high 	complex, 	adversarial, 	or 	procedurally 	demanding 	tasks, 	including 	prolonged
administrative or legal proceeding . . . .” (Id.)
Second, material developments in the case, paired with the specific cognitive
processing limitations described, create exceptional 	circumstances 	that 	warrant the
appointment of counsel. 	Since issuing the last order denying Plaintiff the appointment of
counsel, Defendant has filed two different motions to dismiss. Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and a Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to rule 12(b)(5). 	(Rec. docs. 52, 56). 	Further, Plaintiff allegedly no longer has
access to his Loyola University email, which contained Plaintiff’s copies of every email
complaint that he sent to the University President, Interim Provost, and faculty in which he
reported racial harassment, sexual harassment, and disability discrimination. (Rec. doc. 59
at 6).
On December 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Education Service
opened a formal investigation into Loyola’s treatment of Plaintiff as a disabled veteran
receiving VA education benefits. (Id. at 7). The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights also opened an investigation into Plaintiff’s Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504
allegations following a referral from U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff argues that
coordinating parallel civil litigation and two concurrent federal agency investigations
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 69 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 5

4
require the kind of strategic coordination that a pro se litigant with cognitive processing
limitations cannot independently manage.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has made diligent good faith efforts to retain
counsel which were all rebuffed due to case complexity and financial inability to pay. (Id. at
9). Here, it is evident that the appointment of counsel would be a service to Plaintiff, the
Court, and Defendant by sharpening the issues in the case and serving as an aid to the
litigation process in general. See Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 1980). The
combination of case complexity, documented disability, financial inability to retain counsel,
diligent but unsuccessful efforts to obtain representation, and the critical interests of justice
presented here illustrate that the appointment of counsel is warranted.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono
Counsel (rec. doc. 59) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before April 24, 2026, the FBA-NO Pilot
Program Coordinator is to undertake a search for an attorney from the Civil Pro Bono
Counsel 	Panel 	for the 	appointment 	and 	provide 	that 	attorney’s name 	and 	contact
information to the undersigned. Once that information is received, the Court will issue an
order directing the Clerk of Court to designate that attorney on the docket sheet as counsel
for Plaintiff.
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 69 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a copy of this order to the
Program Coordinator.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 	day of 	, 2026.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March	30th
Case 2:25-cv-02211-WJC-MBN Document 69 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 5