Hozi v. Social Security Administrative SSA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUZAN HOZI, Case No.: 23-CV-31-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion”). (Doc. 19 No. 3.) In support of her Motion, Plaintiff explains she is not employed and relies 20 exclusively on her husband’s annual income totaling $72,000 to fund her living expenses. 21 (Id.) Plaintiff also notes she has not retained counsel in this matter and does not identify 22 any efforts she has undertaken to obtain counsel to represent her here. (Id.) Having 23 reviewed and considered these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 24 There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless a 25 self-represented litigant may lose her physical liberty if she loses the litigation. Lassiter v. 26 Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 27 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(1) grants district courts discretion to appoint 28 counsel to any person unable to afford counsel if, and only if, a self-represented litigant 1 ||makes a showing of reasonable diligence to obtain counsel. Vader v. Social Security 2 || Administration, 2019 WL 13204736 at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(1) and Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993).). 4 If such a showing of reasonable diligence is made, district courts are then permitted 5 ||to exercise their discretion to appoint counsel under “exceptional circumstances.” 6 || Coffmann v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2018 WL 6252524 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 7 |{2018) (citing Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).). Exceptional 8 || circumstances require “evaluat[ing] [] the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits 9 an evaluation of the plaintiffs ability to articulate [her] claims in light of the 10 |}complexity of the legal issues involved.” Jd. (citing Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 11 |/F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) and Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 12 || 1986).). 13 As a threshold matter here, Plaintiff has failed to show what efforts she has made to 14 obtain counsel before seeking this Court’s intervention. Plaintiff's silence on this point 15 |/indicates she has made no efforts. For this reason alone, the Court finds it lacks any 16 || discretion to consider her request for appointment of counsel. Edwards v. Social Security, 17 WL 5191682 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2019); Garcia v. Smith, 2012 WL 2499003 at 18 ||*4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012). However, even if the Court has the discretion to appoint 19 counsel here — which it does not — Plaintiff fails to meet her burden under the exceptional 20 ||circumstances framework. Specifically, there is insufficient information to evaluate (1) 21 || Plaintiff's likelihood of succeeding on the merits and (2) why she is not able to articulate 22 legal claims herself. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint 23 || Counsel. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: January 20, 2023 UM Ss a7 Hon. William V. Gallo 28 United States Magistrate Judge