Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05994/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05994-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

NO. C 09-5994 RS

ORDER

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 08/11/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KENNETH JACKSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-5994 RS 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITH 

LEAVE TO RENEW, REFERRING 

PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL HELP 

CENTER 

 By motion submitted July 13, 2010, pro se plaintiff Kenneth Jackson seeks appointed 

counsel. Plaintiff explains that, due to his disability, he is “unable to handle the case.” In an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (filed on December 22, 2009 and granted on January 10, 

2010 by Magistrate Judge Larson), Jackson also averred that he is unemployed. 

Generally, a person has no right to appointed counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). A court may under “exceptional circumstances” 

appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. 

Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 

circumstances” exist, a court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

Case 3:09-cv-05994-RS Document 16 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 3
NO. C 09-5994 

ORDER

2 

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

For the Northern District of California 

of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive; rather, they must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). 

In view of Jackson’s one-sentence motion, it seems possible but not clear whether the 

circumstances here are “exceptional” within the meaning described above. While the Court is not 

prepared to grant his request for appointment of counsel based on this presentation, he may renew 

his motion. Jackson may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the 

Volunteer Legal Services Program. He should call (415) 782-9000 x8657 or sign up for an 

appointment on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the Legal Help Center, plaintiff 

may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not legal representation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/11/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 3:09-cv-05994-RS Document 16 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 3
NO. C 09-5994 

ORDER

3 

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

For the Northern District of California 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Kenneth Jackson 

518 East Santa Inez Avenue 

San Mateo, CA 94401 

DATED: 08/11/2010 

 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not 

registered with the Court’s electronic filing system. 

 

Case 3:09-cv-05994-RS Document 16 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3