Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Davison
- 7:19-cv-00170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Nunez v. Commissioner, Magistrate Judge Davison denied without prejudice Nunez’s request for volunteer counsel in his Social Security case.
Javier Nunez’s request for court-appointed volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; the order did not decide the merits of his Social Security claim.
What happened
Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security is a Social Security case in which Javier Nunez, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer.
The court explained that people without money do not automatically have a right to a lawyer in civil cases. Courts first consider whether the person is likely to succeed and, if so, then consider factors such as the person’s ability to handle the case and the complexity of the issues. The court could not evaluate Nunez’s likelihood of success at that stage, and noted that lawyers are rarely appointed in Social Security cases.
The court denied Nunez’s request without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar a later request. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison entered the order on May 20, 2020.
The detailed version
- Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-00170
- Paul Davison
- May 20, 2020
Background
Javier Nunez brought an action under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He appeared without a lawyer and requested that the court appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. Because Nunez had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court assumed he could not afford counsel.
Legal standard
The court explained that an indigent plaintiff does not have an automatic right to counsel in a civil case. Appointment of counsel is discretionary. Courts first screen such requests by considering the applicant’s likelihood of success on the merits. If that threshold is met, courts may consider additional factors, including whether the plaintiff can obtain representation independently, handle the case without assistance, investigate the facts, address complex legal issues, or conduct cross-examination.
The court also stated that its role in a Social Security case is limited to deciding whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision and whether the Commissioner used the correct legal standard. Because the court’s review is limited, appointing counsel is seldom warranted in Social Security cases.
Ruling
The court stated that it was unable to evaluate Nunez’s likelihood of success at that stage. It nevertheless concluded that the additional factors did not warrant appointing counsel at that time. Judge Paul E. Davison denied Nunez’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.