Clark v. Ryan et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification of Line 17 and 18 at PG-1 of Document #36-1 dated Filed on 2-13-2019." (Doc. 37 ). See document for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 3/28/2019. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Thomas Clark,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-03105-PHX-DGC (ESW)

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification of Line 17 and 18 at

17

PG-1 of Document #36-1 dated Filed on 2-13-2019.” (Doc. 37). The Order (Doc. 36)

18

speaks for itself. The Court noted in its Order (Doc. 36) that no response to Plaintiff’s

19

“Motion To Include Documents with Case File CV17-03105-PHX-DGC-ESW” (Doc. 35)

20

had been filed.

21

To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting the appointment of counsel, the request for

22

appointment of counsel was denied in the Court’s Order (Doc. 28) filed April 12, 2018.

23

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof for reconsideration of the Court’s Order

24

denying the appointment of counsel.

25

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See

26

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if

27

the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error

28

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

1

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

2

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion

3

for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new

4

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

5

reasonable diligence”).

6

Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion shows that the Court committed clear error or that its

7

prior decision was manifestly unjust. Plaintiff has not shown an inability to articulate his

8

claims and present arguments to the Court, as exemplified by the instant motion. Nor has

9

he shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits.

10
11

The case is now fully briefed and pending a decision by the Court which will issue
in due course.

12

For the reasons set forth above,

13

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion for Clarification of Line 17 and 18

14
15

at PG-1 of Document #36-1 dated Filed on 2-13-2019.” (Doc. 37).
Dated this 28th day of March, 2019.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-