Dimas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/8/2018 DENYING 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel and GRANTING 18 Request for an Extension of Time. (Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAYOLO DIMAS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:16-cv-2720-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 17 18 On November 17, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be 19 imposed for his failure to file his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 17. He was also 20 directed to file his motion for summary judgment by no later than December 20, 2017. Id. In 21 response, plaintiff requests the court appoint him counsel and grant him an extension of time to 22 file his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 18. The request for appointment of counsel is 23 denied and the request for an extension of time is granted. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) authorizes the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent 25 civil litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 26 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); 27 Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional 28 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; 1 1 and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 2 legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The court cannot find that plaintiff’s likelihood 3 of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims 4 amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. 5 Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. 6 Plaintiff also requests additional time to file his motion for summary judgment, claiming 7 that he does not “have all the documents ready.” ECF No. 18. The court notes that in Social 8 Security disability cases, such as this one, the district court’s review is limited to the 9 administrative record, see Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2000), which was 10 served on plaintiff on February 17, 2017, ECF No. 14. Thus, plaintiff has had all documents 11 necessary to prepare his motion for summary judgment for nearly a year. Notwithstanding that 12 fact, the request for an extension of time is granted, and plaintiff shall file his motion for 13 summary judgment by no later than January 29, 2018. 14 DATED: January 8, 2018. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?