Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00743/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00743-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Jesse Alejandro
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN JESSE ALEJANDRO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00743-SKO

ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL, AND SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

I. BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona and in forma pauperis, filed the 

present action in this Court. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner’s denial of his 

application for benefits. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was 

granted on June 2, 2015 (Doc. 6), and he was served with an Informational Order for Pro Se 

Litigants on November 25, 2015 (Doc. 13). 

The Informational Order detailed Plaintiff’s responsibilities as a pro se litigant, including 

the substantive requirements of the exchange of confidential letter briefs and requirement to file an 

opening brief, and required that Plaintiff file his opening brief with the Court and serve his 

opening brief on the Commissioner by no later than June 7, 2016. (See Doc. 13, pp. 2-4, 7.) 

Plaintiff was further advised of the deadlines for the Commissioner’s responsive brief, July 7, 

2016, and for any reply brief, July 22, 2016. (Id.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00743-SKO Document 20 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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

On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff failed to file and serve his opening brief with the Court and on 

the Commissioner. (See Docket.) On July 13, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a statement 

showing cause, if any, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Court’s November 20, 2015, Informational Order setting forth the briefing schedule (Doc. 1). 

(Doc. 17.) On August 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response explaining that his medical condition had 

contributed to his failure to prosecute the action, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.1 

(Doc. 19.) Plaintiff further requests “assistance” with reviewing his case. (Id.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel is Denied without Prejudice

Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case does not have a constitutional right to the appointment 

of counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 

768, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. 30.64 Acres, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986);

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). A court has discretion, however, to 

appoint an attorney to represent “any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). A 

civil plaintiff who seeks appointment of counsel must make a reasonably diligent effort to obtain 

counsel before a court may exercise its discretion under § 1915(e)(1). Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. 

Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993). 

Additionally, while the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist, Palmer, 560 F.3d at 

970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, 

the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 

F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither 

consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation 

and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331. 

//

 

1

 As Plaintiff filed this action pro se and has never been represented by counsel in federal court, the Court assumes 

Plaintiff is alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during his administrative proceedings before the Social Security 

Administration. 

Case 1:15-cv-00743-SKO Document 20 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Although Plaintiff has established his indigence by successfully obtaining in forma 

pauperis status, appointing counsel to represent Plaintiff would be inappropriate because he has 

failed to demonstrate that he made reasonably diligent efforts to obtain counsel. In Plaintiff’s 

response to the order to show cause, he represents that his “medical condition was in such disarray 

that [he] became unaware of the lack of participation from [his] attorney.” (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff’s

inconclusive representation that at some point he had an attorney who has failed to continue 

representing him is not indicative of “a diligent effort to obtain counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Even if Plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable effort to obtain counsel, Plaintiff fails to 

show that exceptional circumstances necessitate appointment of counsel to represent him in this 

matter. First, Plaintiff offers no evidence to substantiate his claim that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security was inappropriate. Second, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment 

of counsel fails to explain how the complexity of Plaintiff’s action would prevent him from 

articulating his claims pro se. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED without prejudice. 

B. Plaintiff is Ordered to File and Serve His Opening Brief by No Later Than 

September 23, 2016 Or This Action Will Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute

In Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, he represents that his “medical condition 

was in such disarray that [he] became unaware of the lack of participation from [his] attorney.” 

(Doc. 19.) However, Plaintiff has never been represented by counsel in these proceedings; 

Plaintiff’s complaint utilizing the “sample format for pro se litigants,” application and amended 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, submission of documents in for service by the U.S. 

Marshal, consent to jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and multiple change of 

address forms have been filed pro se by Plaintiff on the docket. (See Docs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 

18.) Clearly, Plaintiff has been capable of proceeding pro se until this point, and the Court is 

unconvinced that any cause exists why Plaintiff should be excused from noncompliance with the 

Court’s scheduling order. 

Should Plaintiff wish to continue prosecution of his case, by no later than September 23, 

2016, he must file with the Court and serve upon the Commissioner an opening brief complying 

Case 1:15-cv-00743-SKO Document 20 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

with the requirements of the Informational Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Pro Se Litigant. 

(Doc. 21.) The Commissioner’s responsive brief will be due within 30 days of service of the 

opening brief, and Plaintiff’s reply brief will be due within 15 days of service of the opposition. 

If Plaintiff fails to comply with these requirements, this case will be ordered 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Order to Show Cause is held in abeyance of Plaintiff’s filing of an Opening 

Brief; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice; 

3. By no later than September 23, 2016, Plaintiff shall file and serve upon the 

Commissioner an Opening Brief conforming with the requirements set out in the 

Informational Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Pro Se Litigant; and

4. Failure to file and serve the Opening Brief in compliance with this order will result 

in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00743-SKO Document 20 Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 4