Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02222/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02222-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

17-CV-2222-WQH(WVG) 

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 

CRICKET S. BROWN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17-CV-2222-WQH(WVG) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTED COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 6.] 

In this appeal of an administrative decision denying Plaintiff’s request for additional 

SSI benefits, she now seeks appointment of pro bono counsel. Plaintiff states she has 

physical ailments, has not been able to find an attorney to take her case on a pro bono basis, 

and she has “overestimate[d]” her abilities to litigate this case. 

A plaintiff in a civil case generally has no right to appointed counsel. See Hernandez 

v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770-771 (9th Cir. 1989). However, federal courts have discretion 

to request counsel “to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1). But appointment of counsel under section 1915 requires a finding of 

“exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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 

Case 3:17-cv-02222-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 01/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17-CV-2222-WQH(WVG) 

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

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

both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

Here, there is little basis to support a finding of exceptional circumstances at this 

time. First, the record is not sufficiently developed such that the Court can make a 

determination on the likelihood of success on the merits. Second, the allegations in the 

Complaint are not complex. Third, Plaintiff has been able to articulate the gist of her 

allegations in her Complaint. Finally, pro se litigants are afforded some leniency to 

compensate for their lack of legal training. For example, “[i]n civil rights cases where the 

plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford 

plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(internal citation omitted). This deferential standard also applies to motions. Bernhardt v. 

L.A. Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, plaintiff’s pro se status will be 

taken into consideration by the Court when her filings are reviewed. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 29, 2018 

Case 3:17-cv-02222-WQH-WVG Document 9 Filed 01/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2