Filed: May 21, 2012
Latest Update: May 21, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JILLYN K. SCHULZE, Magistrate Judge. Presently pending is a motion by Plaintiff Saundra Brown requesting that this court appoint counsel on her behalf. ECF No. 30. This court has the discretion to appoint an attorney to represent a person who is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C 1915(e)(1). In civil actions, the appointment of counsel may be considered where an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 , 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Wh
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JILLYN K. SCHULZE, Magistrate Judge. Presently pending is a motion by Plaintiff Saundra Brown requesting that this court appoint counsel on her behalf. ECF No. 30. This court has the discretion to appoint an attorney to represent a person who is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C 1915(e)(1). In civil actions, the appointment of counsel may be considered where an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779 , 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Whe..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JILLYN K. SCHULZE, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending is a motion by Plaintiff Saundra Brown requesting that this court appoint counsel on her behalf. ECF No. 30. This court has the discretion to appoint an attorney to represent a person who is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(1). In civil actions, the appointment of counsel may be considered where an indigent claimant presents exceptional circumstances. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Whether such circumstances exist rests on the characteristics of the claim and the litigant. Wisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The existence of exceptional circumstances results from the complexity of the case and the lack of ability of the individual requesting counsel. Id.
Ms. Brown is appealing the denial of her application for social security benefits, a type of claim frequently brought on a pro se basis which does not generally require the appointment of counsel. Moreover, Ms. Brown has demonstrated an ability to communicate coherently in pleadings she has filed to date. See Brock v. City of Richmond, 52 F.3d 320, *2 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished opinion) (noting that a claimant's limitations must be severe, such as the inability to read or write effectively, to be considered exceptional). In addition, she has been represented in this case in the past. Her statement that she lacks legal knowledge and is not able "to complete the summary judgment accurately," does not present exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, Ms. Brown's motion to appoint counsel is denied.
Ms. Brown has requested and been granted numerous extensions to file her response to the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, which was filed on November 4, 2011. A final extension shall apply, and Ms. Brown will have until June 27, 2012, in which to file her response to the pending summary judgment motion. The Commissioner's reply will be due on July 13, 2012.
No further extensions will be granted.
