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)

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