Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00380/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00380-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

3:18-cv-380-WQH-NLS

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

TRAVIS MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-380-WQH-NLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 3. 

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of the denial of social security benefits, along 

with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1-2. The District Judge granted 

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and referred the remaining motions to 

the undersigned. ECF No. 4. 

Plaintiff states that despite diligent efforts to obtain counsel, he has “been 

unsuccessful because of my poverty.” ECF No. 3 at 1. He also argues appointment of 

counsel is appropriate because he has no legal training or knowledge of proper legal 

proceedings. Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that physical and mental impairments make it 

more difficult for him to litigate, but also that he is “resourceful and analytical with 

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 15 Filed 05/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-380-WQH-NLS

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

advanced computer skills.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff references another case he is litigating 

and requests counsel for that case as well. Id., see 3:17-cv-2227-LAB-KSC. 

A. Legal Standard

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 

Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In pro se and in 

forma pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 

(1989). But they do have discretion to request that an attorney represent indigent civil 

litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); 

Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Finding exceptional circumstances entails “an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of 

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light 

of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and 

both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986). 

Here, Plaintiff fails to satisfy either factor of the Wilborn test. 

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s motion 

for appointment of counsel does not address likelihood of success and offers no evidence. 

A plaintiff that provides no evidence of his likelihood of success at trial fails to satisfy the 

first factor of the Wilborn test. Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 

1993); see also, Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (concluding 

likelihood of success not shown where the plaintiff did not present any evidence other 

than his own assertions to support his claims). Without any evidence supporting a 

likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff has not satisfied the first Wilborn factor.

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 15 Filed 05/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-380-WQH-NLS

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

C. Plaintiff’s Ability to Articulate His Claims

Where a pro se civil rights plaintiff shows he has a good grasp of basic litigation 

procedure and has been able to adequately articulate his claims, he does not demonstrate 

exceptional circumstances to warrant appointing counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); see also, Jackson v. Soc. Sec. Administration, C 10-02578 JW, 

2011 WL 13142636, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) (denying appointment of counsel 

without a showing of exceptional circumstances); Smith v. Cook, 17-CV-00961-AJBWVG, 2018 WL 1913833, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2018) (same). The Court has 

reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and other pleadings and finds that the issues he raises are 

not complex. The Court understands Plaintiff’s claims and the relief sought, and the 

District Judge determined the claims were articulated sufficiently to survive sua sponte

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff has demonstrated he has a good grasp on 

litigation procedure, as evidenced by his pleadings and ongoing litigation of another case 

in this court. See 3:17-cv-2227-LAB-KSC. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the circumstances of discovery in this case rise to 

the level of exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See also, 

3:17-cv-2227-LAB-KSC, ECF Nos. 6, 18 (each denying request based on lack of 

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel). 

The second Wilborn factor is not satisfied. 

D. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court thus does not find the “exceptional 

circumstances” required for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 15 Filed 05/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3