Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00156/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00156-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)

---

1 

18-CV-156-DMS(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 

JOSE DINO A DIEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 18-CV-156-DMS(WVG) 

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL [Doc. No. 2] and (2) 

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

AND HEARING DATE ON CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

A. Briefing Schedule for Filing of Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment 

 On January 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review of 

Defendant’s denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) On 

June 11, 2018, Defendant filed an answer and the administrative record. (Doc. Nos. 11, 

13.) Pursuant to Rule 16.1(e)(3) of the Local Rules, an Early Neutral Evaluation is not 

required to be held in this case. CivLR 16.1(e)(3). This Order sets out a briefing schedule 

and hearing date for cross-motions for summary judgment: 

Case 3:18-cv-00156-DMS-WVG Document 15 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18-CV-156-DMS(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

 1. Plaintiff shall file and serve a motion for summary judgment on or before 

September 14, 2018. 

 2. Defendant shall file and serve an opposition and cross-motion for summary 

judgment on or before October 12, 2018. 

 3. Plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition to the cross-motion and reply to 

Defendant’s opposition on or before November 2, 2018. 

 4. Defendant shall file any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition on or before November 

9, 2018. 

 5. The motions shall be scheduled for hearing on November 9, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. 

Unless the Court directs otherwise in advance, this matter will be resolved on the papers, 

and no personal appearances on the hearing date are required. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

 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 

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. Neither Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel nor the accompanying affidavit 

provide justification to grant the request at this time. Both documents lack facts or 

circumstances that demonstrate this case is exceptional. Further, the record is not 

sufficiently developed such that the Court can make a determination on the likelihood of 

Case 3:18-cv-00156-DMS-WVG Document 15 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18-CV-156-DMS(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

success on the merits. 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 his filings are reviewed. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00156-DMS-WVG Document 15 Filed 07/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3