Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06603/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06603-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARING PARK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. /

No. 18-06603 WHA

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO

APPOINT COUNSEL AND

CONSOLIDATE 

Pro se plaintiff Waring Park has renewed his request for appointment of counsel and

moved to consolidate the instant action with two other actions (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17). 

As background, plaintiff filed the instant action to seemingly contest a decision by the

Social Security Administration to suspend his Supplemental Security Income payments (see

Dkt. No. 1). Liberally construing the complaint as an appeal of the Social Security

Administration’s decision, a prior order dated April 23 dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with

leave to amend for failure to establish jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiff had failed to establish

that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and obtained a final decision from the

Commissioner such that a district court has jurisdiction for judicial review (Dkt. No. 11 at 2–3). 

That order also denied plaintiff’s prior request for appointment of counsel, as plaintiff had not

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or the presence of complex legal issues (id.

at 4).

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 18 Filed 08/20/19 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

2

Turning to the instant motions, plaintiff again requests appointment of counsel, stating

that his “cancer treatment has been interrupted” (Dkt. No. 16 at 1). As the prior order advised

plaintiff, however, a district court’s decision to appoint counsel “is granted only in exceptional

circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both “the likelihood of success on the

merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). As of the date of this order,

plaintiff has not attempted to amend his complaint and thus the fact remains that until he

exhausts his administrative remedies, it is unclear whether judicial review will be necessary. 

Nor has plaintiff demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits or the presence of

complex legal issues in his renewed request for counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Plaintiff further filed a letter titled “Emergency,” in which he states that he “was

assaulted by the kids of the owner of the property” he then-occupied and accordingly requests

“a consolidation of cases” brought by plaintiff in this district (Dkt. No. 17 at 1). Specifically,

plaintiff moves to consolidate the instant action with Park v. United States, Case No. C 18-

06621 (Judge Susan Illston) and Park v. University of California San Francisco, Case No. C

17-05944 (Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr.). Those actions before Judges Illston and Gilliam Jr.,

however, have already been dismissed and subsequently closed. That is, Judge Gilliam Jr.

dismissed Park v. University of California San Francisco with prejudice in November 2017

(Case No. 17-5944, Dkt. No. 9). Judge Illston dismissed Park v. United States without leave to

amend in February 2019 and subsequently denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in April

2019 (Case No. 18-6621, Dkt. Nos. 18, 21). Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is thus DENIED.

* * *

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 18 Filed 08/20/19 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

3

The deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint discussed above and in the order dated April 23

remain. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by SEPTEMBER 6. Failure to adhere to this

deadline will likely result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 18 Filed 08/20/19 Page 3 of 3