BATTLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Georgia

BATTLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, M.D. Georgia·Decided June 27, 2022·No. 5:22-cv-00137·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

DETRICH D. BATTLE, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:22-cv-00137-CHW v. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY : : Social Security Appeal Defendant. : : ________________________________________

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Detrich Battle seeks the appointment of counsel to represent him in this Social Security Appeal and an extension of time to file his brief. (Doc. 8). No right to counsel exists in a civil case. Wahl v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be appointed, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).1 In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, he appears to understand the basic process of a social security appeal, and the applicable legal doctrines are

1 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute does not, however, provide any funding to pay attorneys for their representation or authorize courts to compel attorneys to represent an indigent party in a civil case. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Southern Dist. Of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, then

the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel at that time. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s brief is due or before July 29, 2022. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of June, 2022.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

DETRICH D. BATTLE, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:22-cv-00137-CHW v. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY : : Social Security Appeal Defendant. : : ________________________________________

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Detrich Battle seeks the appointment of counsel to represent him in this Social Security Appeal and an extension of time to file his brief. (Doc. 8). No right to counsel exists in a civil case. Wahl v McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1986). Rather, the appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances. Id. In deciding whether legal counsel should be appointed, the Court considers, among other factors, the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the complexity of the issues presented. Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1989).1 In accordance with Holt, and upon a review of the record in this case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has set forth the essential factual allegations underlying his claims, he appears to understand the basic process of a social security appeal, and the applicable legal doctrines are

1 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The statute does not, however, provide any funding to pay attorneys for their representation or authorize courts to compel attorneys to represent an indigent party in a civil case. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Southern Dist. Of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). readily apparent. As such, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should it later become apparent that legal assistance is required to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, then

the Court, on its own motion, will consider assisting Plaintiff in securing legal counsel at that time. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s brief is due or before July 29, 2022. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of June, 2022.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

BATTLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (M.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

BATTLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (BATTLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related