Rayfield J. Thibeaux, Appellant v. Social Security Administration, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Rayfield J. Thibeaux, Appellant v. Social Security Administration, Appellee

No. 16-5099

Decided: October 06, 2016

BEFORE: Brown, Griffith, and Pillard, Circuit Judges


Upon consideration of the motion to appoint counsel; and the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant did not exhaust all administrative remedies before the Social Security Administration before filing his complaint in the district court, and he has failed to demonstrate that waiver of the exhaustion requirement was warranted in this case. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986). In particular, appellant has not demonstrated that the central question in this case is “entirely collateral to a substantive claim of entitlement,” that he will be irreparably injured by enforcement of the exhaustion requirement, or that exhaustion would have been futile. Id.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Copied to clipboard