Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security

M.D. Florida

Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security

DecidedJanuary 6, 2021

Docket8:20-cv-03009

StatusUnknown

This text of Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security (Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security, (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DALE EUGENE CHANDLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8:20-cv-3009-T-23AAS

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER Dale Eugene Chandler requests a jury trial and appointment of counsel. (Docs. 6, 7). Mr. Chandler action is an appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to revoke Mr. Chandler’s social security disability benefits. (See Doc. 1). Mr. Chandler’s request for a jury trial is denied because no issue in this appeal is triable by a jury. Turning to the appointment of counsel request, a plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). However, a court may, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff in “exceptional circumstances.” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996). Whether exceptional circumstances exist is committed to the district court’s discretion. Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320. Exceptional circumstances may exist when the facts or legal issues are “so complex as to require the assistance of a trained 1 practitioner.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) Gnternal quotation and citation omitted). Mr. Chandler has not identified any exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel and his complaint does not present any complex factual or legal issues. See Vickers v. Georgia, 567 F. App’x 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion to refuse to appoint counsel where case alleging constitutional violations did not present novel or complex issues of law). Accordingly, Mr. Chandler’s Motion for a Jury Trial (Doc. 6) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) are DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 6, 2021. Aranda. Ayre hh Samone. AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Dale Eugene Chandler

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DALE EUGENE CHANDLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8:20-cv-3009-T-23AAS

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER Dale Eugene Chandler requests a jury trial and appointment of counsel. (Docs. 6, 7). Mr. Chandler action is an appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to revoke Mr. Chandler’s social security disability benefits. (See Doc. 1). Mr. Chandler’s request for a jury trial is denied because no issue in this appeal is triable by a jury. Turning to the appointment of counsel request, a plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). However, a court may, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff in “exceptional circumstances.” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996). Whether exceptional circumstances exist is committed to the district court’s discretion. Bass, 170 F.3d at 1320. Exceptional circumstances may exist when the facts or legal issues are “so complex as to require the assistance of a trained 1 practitioner.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) Gnternal quotation and citation omitted). Mr. Chandler has not identified any exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel and his complaint does not present any complex factual or legal issues. See Vickers v. Georgia, 567 F. App’x 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion to refuse to appoint counsel where case alleging constitutional violations did not present novel or complex issues of law). Accordingly, Mr. Chandler’s Motion for a Jury Trial (Doc. 6) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) are DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 6, 2021. Aranda. Ayre hh Samone. AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Dale Eugene Chandler

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-commissioner-social-security-flmd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack