Holmes v. Barker et al

Filing 30

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/19/08.(SAT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph C. Holmes, Plaintiff, vs. Russell Barker, a Police Officer for the City of Clinton, Tennessee, et al. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-08-190-PHX-DGC ORDER

On September 19, 2008, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. #19. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Dkt. #21. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008); Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The arguments and evidence presented in support of the instant motion do not change the Court's prior conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. See Dkt. #19 at 2 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel where the plaintiff had sufficient writing ability and legal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

knowledge to articulate his claim, the facts alleged and issues raised were not of substantial complexity, and it was not likely that he would succeed on the merits). The Court accordingly will deny Plaintiff's motion. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #21) is denied. DATED this 19th day of November, 2008.

-2-