Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00215/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00215-0/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

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

WALDO R. MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16CV215-GPC(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.]

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff Waldo Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act along with a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On

that same day, Plaintiff additionally filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF

No. 3.) 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP

All proceedingsfiled with the District Court require a filing fee unlessthe Court

grants IFP status, waiving the fee. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir.

1999). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may waive the filing fee if a party

demonstrates an inability to pay by submitting an affidavit reporting all assets of the

individual. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Here, Plaintiff submitted a declaration reporting that he is not presently

- 1 - [16CV0215-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

employed and that he has not worked since 2002. He receives money from public

assistance and has $98.86 in his checking account. He owns a car worth around

$800.00. He does not own any real estate; however, due to the recent deaths of his

parents, he may receive assets, including a home, from his parents’ will which is

currently being disputed in probate. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he is

unable to pay the required filing fee and meets the requirements to proceed IFP. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.)

Generally, a civil plaintiff has no right to appointed counsel. See Hernandez v.

Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1989)

Nonetheless, federal courts have discretion to appoint counsel for any party

proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see also Johnson v. Comm’r of

Soc. Sec., No. 3:11-cv-2596-JAH (BLM), 2012 WL 124793, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17,

2002). Under the law of this circuit, however, court appointment of counsel requires

a finding of “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991). In order to assess whether such circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate

both a petitioner’s (a) likelihood of success on the merits and (b) ability to articulate

his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. “Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). This Circuit,

however, has determined that not every difficulty a pro se plaintiff encounters in

prosecuting his case is a complexity entitling him to counsel. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

1331 (“If all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant

issues was a demonstration of the need for [the] development of further facts,

practically all cases would involve complex legal issues. Thus, although Wilborn may

have found it difficult to articulate his claims pro se, he has neither demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that the complexity of the issues

- 2 - [16CV0215-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

involved was sufficient to require designation of counsel.” )

Here, at this time, based on the Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. In addition, Plaintiff has not

made a showing of his inability to articulate the basis of his claims in light of the

complexities of the issues involved. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel without

prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue a summons

as to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) upon Defendant and shall forward it to

Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for the Defendant. In addition,

the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order and a certified

copy of her Complaint and the summons so that she may serve the Defendant. Upon

receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285 as

completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States

Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter

accompanying his IFP package. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy

of the Complaint and summons upon the Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the

USM Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 19, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [16CV0215-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 6 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3