Johnson v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES JOHNSON, Case No.: 23-CV-481 JLS (AHG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND APPOINT 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner, COUNSEL Social Security Administration; ERIC V. 15 BENHAM, Administrate Law Judge; (ECF No. 85) 16 LAURA MIDDLETON, Administrative Appeals Judge; MS. KAWANO (full 17 name and title to be ascertained); and 18 DOES 4 to 100, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court is a motion submitted by Plaintiff James Johnson 22 (“Plaintiff”) captioned “Emergency Ex Parte Motion to: 1) Stay Proceedings; 2) Compel 23 Wardships to Appear and Provide Legal Counsel to Ward” (“Mot.,” ECF No. 85). Plaintiff 24 requests the “immediate issuance and service of subpoenas requiring hearing and 25 appearances of Plaintiff’s Financial Wardships”—identified as United States Social 26 Security Administration Commissioner, Martin O’Malley, and California Health and 27 Human Services Agency Secretary, Mark Ghaly—with the purpose of said hearing to 28 “consider a court Order compelling” either one or both “Financial Wardships” to pay all 1 costs and fees required for securing and maintaining a qualified legal representative for 2 Plaintiff in this instant case. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff also requests the “immediate stay of all 3 proceedings, [and] rulings in this case for 60-days pending the completion of this motion 4 and respective order/s[.]” Id. The Court construes this as a motion to appoint counsel and 5 for a stay. Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the Court 6 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 7 The Court has previously denied several of Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment 8 of counsel. See ECF Nos. 32, 39, 45. In the present Motion, Plaintiff contends he does not 9 seek direct assistance “from the court’s ‘for profit’ pro bono fund reserved only for winning 10 cases but demands assistance from the wardships.” Mot. at 7. Plaintiff argues Martin 11 O’Malley and Mark Ghaly must be compelled to provide him with proper legal 12 representation because “a) they are in absolute control of Plaintiff’s benefits, hence his 13 ability to not only survive but to hire legal counsel, and b) the government has violated 14 Plaintiff’s Rights, the continuation of which will result in the permanent loss of benefits, 15 hence Plaintiff’s survival.” Mot. at 19. However, Plaintiff’s cited cases referencing 16 wardships of American Indians, seamen, children, mentally incompetent individuals, and 17 institutionalized individuals, id. at 19–22, do not establish, and Plaintiff does not otherwise 18 support, his contention that he is entitled to an order granting a mistrial and compelling 19 Martin O’Malley and Mark Ghaly to “immediately pay a start retainer of $20,000 to cover 20 the cost of the Ward Plaintiff’s legal counsel who will be paid a court-approved hourly, 21 service fee, plus costs, as supervised by the court[.]” Id. at 24. Instead, as far as the Court 22 can ascertain, Plaintiff’s Motion reasserts the same arguments from his prior motions for 23 counsel in that he is not able to adequately represent himself because he lacks legal training 24 and suffers from disabilities. 25 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. 26 Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts have some 27 limited discretion to “request” that an attorney represent an indigent civil litigant, which 28 may only be exercised in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 1 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 2 Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires “an evaluation of the 3 || likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff's ability 4 || to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 5 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 6 || “Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a 7 \|decision.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 8 Here, all but one claim in Plaintiff's SAC have been dismissed without prejudice 9 || and without leave to amend. See ECF No. 51. While the Court found Plaintiff sufficiently 10 || pled a § 405(g) claim, the Court notes the main substantive motions at issue, □□□□□□□□□□□ 11 || Motion for Bifurcation (ECF No. 63) and Defendant Martin O’ Malley’s Motion to Remand 12 ||(ECF No. 61), are not particularly complex and have already been briefed by Plaintiff. 13 || Accordingly, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances require appointment of 14 || counsel. 15 The Court understands Plaintiff's request for a stay to be a request to halt 16 || proceedings until this Motion is granted and subsequent orders provide him with counsel. 17 || However, as this instant Motion with respect to Plaintiff's request for appointment of 18 || counsel is DENIED as explained above, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's request 19 || for stay. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Emergency Motion is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: August 29, 2024 (ee 22 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28