Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01768/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01768-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MOHAMMAD SARWAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1768 PVT

ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD

NOT BE REMANDED FOR

REHEARING

On December 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.1 After the briefing

on that motion was complete, on January 31, 2006, this court issued an Order to Show Cause Why

Case Should Not Be Remanded for Rehearing. Defendant responded to the OSC, and Plaintiff

replied to Defendant’s response. Based on the briefs and arguments presented and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order to show cause is DISSOLVED. Although as

discussed below the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did err, Plaintiff has not shown that the error

was prejudicial. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (A decision of the ALJ will

not be reversed for errors that are harmless”).

The ALJ failed to properly advise Plaintiff of his right to legal representation and provide

him with sufficient information to enable him to intelligently decide whether to retain counsel or

proceed pro se. See, e.g., Thompson v. Sullivan, 933 F.2d 581, 584-85 (7th Cir. 1991). The entire

Case 5:05-cv-01768-PVT Document 18 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 2

discussion between the ALJ and Plaintiff on this issue was as follows:

“ALJ: Great. This hearing is held on October 21, 2003, in San Jose,

California. Let the record reflect that the Claimant is present without representation, doesn’t

have a lawyer.

“INT: Okay.

“ALJ: Have you had an opportunity to look for an attorney or other

representative?

 “CLMT: I couldn’t do that. It was difficult.

“ALJ: Would you like more time to find an attorney?

 “CLMT: Not really. I have lots of difficulty in that regard.

“ALJ: I think that was a knowing and intelligent waiver of your right to

representation.

 “CLMT: No.

“ALJ: We’re here today because you requested a hearing after Social Security

denied your application for SSI. * * * *.”

The first and only mention of any right to representation was in the ALJ’s statement that

Plaintiff had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right. And to that Plaintiff responded

“No.” The ALJ failed to clarify that response, and on it’s face it appears to be a statement by

Plaintiff that he did not wish to waive his right to representation. Further, despite the fact the

Plaintiff indicated he had difficulty finding an attorney, the ALJ did not inquire regarding the nature

of the difficulties or offer Plaintiff any information that might assist him in locating an attorney. As

in the Thompson case, Plaintiff’s attempt to secure counsel strongly suggests that he desired

representation. The ALJ’s failure to adequately advise Plaintiff about the benefits of counsel, the

availability of free or contingency counsel, and his statutory right to representation constituted legal

error. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, as Defendant points out in its response to the order to show

cause, Plaintiff has not shown he was prejudiced by this error. Despite being notified of this lack of

showing, in his reply to the Defendant’s response Plaintiff did not supplement his showing to

establish that, had he had counsel, he would have presented evidence which could have resulted in a

different outcome. While he claims he should have had the opportunity to have counsel, he has not

shown what specific evidence counsel would have presented that could have made a difference. 

Dated: 4/11/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01768-PVT Document 18 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2