Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02847/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02847-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16-cv-2847-JM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Christopher Michael Larsen,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-2847-JM-AGS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

USMS SERVICE [Doc. 9] AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTED COUNSEL [Doc. 8]

In a separate Report and Recommendation filed today, this Court recommended 

denying pro se plaintiff Christopher Larsen’s motion for a default judgment, but granting 

his motion to extend time to perfect service. If the District Judge disagrees with either 

recommendation, this case is effectively over. But if the District Judge adopts both 

recommendations, Larsen’s remaining motions become relevant. Those are adjudicated 

below.

A. Motion to Direct Service by the U.S. Marshal [Doc. 9]

When a “plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis”—like Larsen—the 

Court “must” order that “service be made by a United States marshal or deputy 

marshal. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Thus, if the District Judge extends the time to perfect 

service as this Court recommended, Larsen’s motion for such U.S. Marshal support is 

GRANTED. Also, for each individual or entity he wishes to serve, Larsen must provide 

Case 3:16-cv-02847-JM-AGS Document 14 Filed 05/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-2847-JM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Marshal with a completed USMS Form 285, a completed summons, and a copy of the 

complaint. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to the U.S. Marshal for the Southern 

District of California.

B. Motion for Appointed Counsel [Doc. 8]

Larsen also requests appointed counsel, explaining that several attorneys have 

refused to take his case and “the level of stress and frustration inherent in federal lawsuits 

has worsened some of [his] symptoms.” [Doc. 8, at 2.] “Generally, a plaintiff in a civil 

case has no right to appointed counsel,” absent a showing of indigency and “exceptional 

circumstances.” Johnson v. Comm’n of Soc. Sec., Civil No. 3:11-cv-2596-JAH (BLM), 

2012 WL 124793, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1). But see Brinker v. Colvin, 603 F. App’x 609, 610 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The 

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brinker’s motion for appointment of 

counsel because there are no provisions for supplying counsel at government expense in 

social security cases.”). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of 

both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate 

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these 

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Terrell 

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).

Even if Larsen were otherwise entitled to appointed counsel, he has not shown such 

exceptional circumstances. First, since the administrative record has not yet been filed, the 

Court cannot independently evaluate Larsen’s likelihood of success on the merits, and 

Larsen has made no showing on this point. Second, he has thus far articulated his legal 

position well; his complaint and various motions are clearly and cogently written. 

Although Larsen appears to have improperly effected service—see the Report and 

Recommendation filed at the same time as this order—he also identified his error and 

requested appropriate relief. A single service mistake is not exceptional, especially when 

the Court ultimately recommends that he be given additional time to remedy the 

shortcoming. Larsen does not argue otherwise as to these points, but contends that the 

Case 3:16-cv-02847-JM-AGS Document 14 Filed 05/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-2847-JM-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stress of a federal lawsuit has worsened his symptoms. But without more detail, the stress 

that is an unfortunate and innate characteristic of federal litigation cannot qualify as an 

exceptional circumstance.

For these reasons, Larsen’s motion for appointed counsel is DENIED.

Dated: May 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02847-JM-AGS Document 14 Filed 05/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3