Johnson v. Berryhill

Filing 8

ORDER directing Clerk to prepare summons and serve civil process clerk of the US Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, Attorney General of the US, Washington, D.C., and Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the SSA; denying [7-1] Request of appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 03/02/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
JIMMY D. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 318-007

_________
ORDER
_________
Plaintiff filed the above-captioned complaint pro se on January 30, 2018, challenging
the denial of his application for benefits. (Doc. no. 1.) On February 13, 2018, the Court
granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but directed him to submit an
amended complaint within fourteen days substituting the correct defendant and detailing
when he has previously applied for and been denied benefits and for what type of benefits he
applied. (Doc. no. 6.)
On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint naming the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration as Defendant and detailing when he
applied for benefits and what type. (Doc. no. 7.) Given the new information in his amended
complaint, it appears he has met the prerequisites for review of his claim.

Accordingly, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this social security case, the Court
HEREBY INSTRUCTS the Clerk of Court to prepare an appropriate summons for
Defendant Berryhill and to deliver a copy of the summons, the amended complaint, and this
Order by certified mail to: (1) the civil process clerk at the office of the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia; (2) the Attorney General of the United States,
Washington, D.C.; and (3) Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1) - (2).
Plaintiff also requests the Court appoint him counsel. (Doc. no. 7-1, p. 2.) However,
“[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right [and is] justified only by
exceptional circumstances.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation
omitted). Plaintiff gives no reason why he should be appointed counsel, and his filings show
that his circumstances have not prevented him from “presenting the essential merits of his . .
. position,” which is the key consideration in determining whether the appointment of
counsel is justified. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to appoint counsel.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

2