Smith v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 9, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05152
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DARREN LEE SMITH, 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C21-5152 RAJ 9 ORDER DENYING v. 10 APPLICATION FOR COURT- APPOINTED COUNSEL 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action seeking review 14 of the Commissioner’s calculation of Social Security benefits. Dkts. 6, 11. Plaintiff now 15 moves for court-appointed counsel to assist with his appeal. Dkt. 19. For the reasons 16 discussed below, this application is DENIED. 17 There is no absolute right to counsel in a civil action such as this one. See Hedges 18 19 v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Under 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(1), the Court may appoint counsel for civil litigants “unable to afford counsel”, 21 but may do so only in “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 22 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 23 1986)); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In assessing whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, 1 the Court will consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of 2 the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 3 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). “Neither of these 4 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision[.]” 5 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 6 At this early stage, Plaintiff presents insufficient evidence to establish a likelihood 7 of success on the merits. Dkt. 19. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege or explain in his 8 motion how or why the complexity of the issues in this case would prevent him from 9 articulating his claim pro se. Id. In fact, based on the complaint, Plaintiff’s claim 10 appears relatively clearly articulated. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff challenges the fairness of the 11 12 Social Security Administration’s “concurrent benefits” and “limitation of resources” 13 calculations relating to Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. 14 Id. at 7-8. Based on the limited information available thus far in the proceeding, Plaintiff 15 appears able to articulate his claims relatively well pro se. Plaintiff, therefore, has not 16 presented exceptional circumstances that would justify appointing counsel at this time. 17 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. 18 19) is DENIED without prejudice. 19 DATED this 9th day of June, 2021. 20

21 A

22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge