Camargo v. SSA Commissioner

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08552
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PABLO CAMARGO, Case No. 25-cv-08552-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 9 v. APPOINT COUNSEL

10 SSA COMMISSIONER, Re: Dkt. No. 3 11 Defendant.

12 13 On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff Pablo Camargo filed a request for appointed counsel. ECF 14 No. 3. Plaintiff used a template form containing boilerplate language stating that his case involves 15 complex legal and factual issues. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 17 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, a court may under “exceptional 18 circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants. Id. (citation omitted). “To obtain 19 appointment of pro bono counsel, a litigant must be proceeding in forma pauperis (‘IFP’) and lack 20 the financial resources to retain counsel.” Swapna v. Deshraj, 2017 WL 3721444, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 21 Aug. 29, 2017) (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (“a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ 22 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)”). “When 23 determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court considers ‘the likelihood of success 24 on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 25 complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 26 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Neither of these considerations is dispositive; rather, they 27 must be viewed together. Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, to be eligible for appointed counsel, 1 Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (citing Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San 2 || Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1319 (9th Cir. 1981)). 3 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel because he is not 4 || proceeding in forma pauperis. But even if he were, at this early stage in the litigation, the 5 likelihood of Plaintiff's success on the merits is unclear, and Plaintiff has thus far sufficiently 6 articulated his claims pro se. The issues do not appear to be unduly complex, and there is no 7 indication that discovery in this action is so complex as to require appointment of counsel. 8 Further, although Plaintiff’s motion includes boilerplate language asserting that he made a good- 9 faith effort to obtain counsel, he has provided no evidence or explanation demonstrating any actual 10 || effort beyond the bare assertions in the form. Plaintiffs request is therefore denied without 11 prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel should circumstances so require. 12 Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service offered by 5 13 || the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco. You may request an 14 appointment by emailing fedpro @sfbar.org or calling 415-782-8982. At the Legal Help Center, 15 you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not 16 || representation. More information is available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 3 17 Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of the district court’s Handbook for Litigants S 18 Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, 19 including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office 20 || and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 8, 2025

THOMAS S. HIXSON 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28