1 - OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GREGORY CANYON PETERSEN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

No. 3:15-cv-01023-HZ 

OPINION & ORDER 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

Gregory C. Petersen

17029 SE Powell Blvd. 

Portland, OR 97236 

Pro Se Plaintiff

Ronald K. Silver 

United States Attorneys Office

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:15-cv-01023-HZ Document 14 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2 - OPINION & ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff Gregory Petersen filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) [1], a complaint [2], and a motion for appointment of counsel [3]. The Court 

granted Petersen’s motion for leave to proceed IFP by minute order [5] on June 15, 2015. For the 

reasons stated, Petersen’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DISCUSSION

A district court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). There is not, however, a constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, 

and 28 U.S.C § 1915 does not “authorize the appointment of counsel to involuntary service.” 

United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision to appoint 

counsel is “within the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 

circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). A finding of exceptional circumstances depends on two 

factors: the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate 

his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Neither factor is dispositive 

and both must be viewed together before ruling on a request for counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

The Court does not find exceptional circumstances at this stage in the proceedings. The 

Court is unable to analyze the likelihood of success on the merits of Petersen’s claims. He has 

filed a short complaint alleging that the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for 

supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits was based on an “abuse of 

discretion . . . errors of law,” and was “not supported by substantial evidence.” Complaint at 1. 

While his complaint correctly states the controlling standard of review under which the Court 

Case 3:15-cv-01023-HZ Document 14 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3 - OPINION & ORDER

may eventually analyze the Commissioner’s decision in his case, those conclusory allegations 

are not sufficient to examine whether Petersen’s claims have merit. 

Moreover, Petersen’s complaint suggests that he has the ability to articulate his claims 

with sufficient clarity to move the case forward. It is well-organized, succinctly stated, and 

contains correct citations to the relevant statutes. Petersen seems to fully grasp the manner in 

which Social Security cases typically unfold, and he has requested appropriate relief. See

Complaint at 1–2. Given Petersen’s apparent ability to articulate his claims, it would be 

inappropriate to appoint pro bono counsel at this time. 

If, after the Commissioner has answered Petersen’s complaint and the parties have 

submitted their briefing, the case takes on additional complexity or it becomes clear that Petersen 

is unable to sufficiently present his claims, he can file another motion for appointment of counsel 

at that time. 

CONCLUSION

Because Petersen is able to articulate his claims and the Court is not yet able to analyze 

the merits of his case, Petersen’s motion for appointment of counsel [3] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this day of __________________, 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01023-HZ Document 14 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3