Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02596/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02596-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

11cv2596

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:11-cv-2596-JAH (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

INTRODUCTION

On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint challenging

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Plaintiff Social Security

benefits, (Dkt. No. 1), an application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), and a

motion for appointment of counsel, (Dkt. No. 3). After a review of Plaintiff’s pleadings,

and for the reasons stated herein, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

1. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

 A court may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees

if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing

that he or she is unable to pay the fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Notwithstanding

payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person proceeding

in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua

Case 3:11-cv-02596-JAH-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 4
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

2 11cv2596

sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary relief from a

defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254

F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not

limited to prisoners”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc).

This Court has conducted a sua sponte review of Plaintiff’s allegations and finds

that Plaintiff’s claims do not appear, on their face, to be frivolous or malicious. In

addition, Plaintiff’s complaint does not appear, on its face, to fail to state a claim pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), nor does Defendant appear to be immune from

suit.

Regarding Plaintiff’s ability to proceed without payment of fees, Plaintiff indicates

he is currently unemployed and has not worked since April 2006. (Dkt. No. 2 at 2.) 

Plaintiff represents that he received one Social Security, disability, or other welfare check

in the twelve months preceding the filing of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.)

Plaintiff additionally represents that he received no money from “[a]ny other sources” in

those preceding twelve months, (id.), but also represents that his mother and family

“sometimes help [Plaintiff] out” by providing funds for his day-to-day expenses, (id. at 3.)

Notwithstanding this apparent inconsistency, this Court finds that, based on the

remainder of Plaintiff’s representations, Plaintiff has shown that he is unable to pay the

fees required to commence his lawsuit. Therefore, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

In addition to Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff also filed

a motion for appointment of counsel, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-5(f)(1), and included a declaration in support of this request. Section 2000e5(f)(1), however, is not applicable to reviews of Social Security Disability determinations.

Nevertheless, this Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and attached declaration to

determine whether the appointment of counsel is appropriate in this instance. 

Case 3:11-cv-02596-JAH-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 4
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

3 11cv2596

Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to appointed counsel. See

Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. 30.64

Acres, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). A court has discretion, however, to appoint an

attorney to represent “any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). A

civil plaintiff who seeks appointment of counsel must make a reasonably diligent effort to

obtain counsel before a court may exercise its discretion under § 1915(e)(1). Bailey v.

Lawford, 835 F.Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993). 

Additionally, court appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

requires a finding of “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Wilson v. Esalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986)). Determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist requires a court to

evaluate the petitioner’s (1) likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) ability to

articulate his claims pro se. Id. “Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

viewed before reaching a decision.” Id.

Although Plaintiff has established his indigence by successfully obtaining in forma

pauperis status, appointing counsel to represent Plaintiff would be inappropriate because

he has failed to demonstrate that he made reasonably diligent efforts to obtain counsel.

In Plaintiff’s declaration accompanying his motion for appointment of counsel, he

represents he has contacted Bender and Bender to discuss handling his claim and that, as

of the date of filing, Bender and Bender has neither decided nor declined to represent

Plaintiff in this matter. (Dkt. No. 3 at 3.) Plaintiff’s lone and inconclusive inquiry to

obtain representation of counsel is not indicative of “a diligent effort to obtain counsel.”

Bailey, 835 F. Supp. at 552. 

Even if Plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable effort to obtain counsel, Plaintiff

fails to show that exceptional circumstances necessitate appointment of counsel to

represent him in this matter. First, Plaintiff offers no evidence to substantiate his claim

that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security was inappropriate. Second,

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel fails to explain how the complexity of

Case 3:11-cv-02596-JAH-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 4
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

4 11cv2596

Plaintiff’s action would prevent him from articulating his claims pro se. For the foregoing

reasons, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

3. The United States Marshal Service shall serve a copy of the complaint

and summons upon Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form

285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

Dated: January 13, 2012

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02596-JAH-BLM Document 4 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 4