Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04262/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04262-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

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.

2 Even if the Civil Rights Act provisions for appointment of counsel applied, Plaintiff did

not make the required showing. Plaintiff has not shown any efforts to secure counsel or that the claim

is meritorious. Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ATSU O ACOLATSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-4262 PVT

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

On August 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel Under the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5(f)(1)(B).1

 The Civil Rights Act, however, only

provides for appointment of counsel for claims of unlawful employment practices under the Civil

Rights Act. Plaintiff in this case is seeking review of an adverse decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security. Accordingly, no claim under the Civil Rights Act has been presented to the Court.2

Case 5:07-cv-04262-PVT Document 12 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

Plaintiff did, however, apply for and receive the right to proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28

U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 also authorizes a Court to “request an attorney to represent any person

unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S. C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute authorizes the Court to request

representation on a pro bono basis but does not authorize the Court to require counsel to represent

the plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-07 (1989). Under section

1915, the Court’s power to appoint counsel is limited to exceptional circumstances. Aldabe v.

Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986). The Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability

of the petitioner to articulate his claim pro se in light of the complexities involved.” Wilborn, 789

F.2d at 1331. 

The Court finds at this point that there is no indication of success on the merits because the

complaint is so briefly stated. Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any inability to articulate

the claims involved in this suit. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Request for

Appointment of Counsel is Denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff can show both a likelihood of

success and an inability to articulate the claims, Plaintiff may renew the request for appointment of

counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: October 16, 2007

 ____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04262-PVT Document 12 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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 3

copies mailed on October 16 , 2007 to: 

Atsu Acolatse (pro se)

3575 Lehigh Drive #2

Santa Clara, CA 95051

/s/ Carolyn Frantz for 

CORINNE LEW 

Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:07-cv-04262-PVT Document 12 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 3