Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. North Carolina

Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 3, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00253

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00253-MR

PAKUJA CRYSTAL VANG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s letter, which the Court construes as a motion for the appointment of counsel. [Doc. 5]. The Plaintiff requests the Court for the appointment of counsel to represent her in this matter. [Doc. 5]. There is, however, no absolute right to the appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one. Therefore, a civil litigant must present “exceptional circumstances” in order to require the Court to seek the assistance of a private attorney for a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel, and therefore, her motion is denied. The pro se Plaintiff is further advised that, in the future, letters sent to the Clerk of Court or Judge will not be answered. Only Motions will be ruled

on by the Court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's letter, which the Court construes as a motion for the appointment of counsel [Doc. 5], is hereby DENIED. ITIS SO ORDERED. . January 3, 2023

Martifi Reidinger ee Chief United States District Judge AS

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:22-cv-00253-MR

PAKUJA CRYSTAL VANG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s letter, which the Court construes as a motion for the appointment of counsel. [Doc. 5]. The Plaintiff requests the Court for the appointment of counsel to represent her in this matter. [Doc. 5]. There is, however, no absolute right to the appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one. Therefore, a civil litigant must present “exceptional circumstances” in order to require the Court to seek the assistance of a private attorney for a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel, and therefore, her motion is denied. The pro se Plaintiff is further advised that, in the future, letters sent to the Clerk of Court or Judge will not be answered. Only Motions will be ruled

on by the Court. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's letter, which the Court construes as a motion for the appointment of counsel [Doc. 5], is hereby DENIED. ITIS SO ORDERED. . January 3, 2023

Martifi Reidinger ee Chief United States District Judge AS

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vang-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ncwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack