Hackworth v. Rangel et al
Filing
101
ORDER DENYING 100 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Appointment of Counsel and Request for Consideration of Recusal, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 04/16/2013. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
ROBERT HACKWORTH,
CASE No. 1:06-cv-00850-AWI-MJS (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING (1) RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL (2) REQUEST FOR
CONSIDERATION OF RECUSAL
12
v.
13
14
P. RANGEL, et al.,
(ECF No. 100)
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
19
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Robert Hackworth is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action filed July 6, 2006 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF
21
No. 1.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant
22
Rangel. (ECF No. 20.) The Court granted Defendant Rangel’s motion for summary
23
judgment on October 6, 2011 and dismissed this action. (ECF Nos. 77 & 78.) Plaintiff
24
initiated an appeal on October 17, 2011. (ECF No. 79.) The United States Court of
25
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the Court’s summary judgment and remanded the
26
matter for further proceedings on September 12, 2012. (ECF No. 90.) Trial in this
27
matter is set for October 22, 2013. (ECF No. 92.)
28
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion of Objection (ECF 100) seeking
-1-
1
reconsideration of the Court’s April 2, 2013 Order Denying Motion Requesting
2
Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 99). Plaintiff asserts extraordinary circumstances
3
supporting appointment of counsel and requests the undersigned consider recusal. The
4
Motion is now before the Court.
5
II.
ARGUMENT
6
Plaintiff asserts that he can not represent himself at trial because he may not be
7
able to express himself well verbally; his access to the law library is limited to two hours
8
every six months; he has attempted to secure counsel on his own with no success;
9
other inmates have assisted him with his filings; his underlying Eighth Amendment
10
claim is very complex; and the undersigned, who issued Findings and
11
Recommendations granting summary judgment subsequently vacated by the Ninth
12
Circuit, may be predisposed against him on that basis. (ECF 100 at 1-2.)
13
III.
14
15
16
ANALYSIS
A.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from
17
an order and judgment for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used
18
sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only
19
where extraordinary
20
circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The
21
moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .”
22
Id. In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to identify
23
the motion or order in issue and when it was made, and show “what new or different
24
facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon
25
such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”
26
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
27
circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
28
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
-2-
1
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009),
2
and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
3
[c]ourt's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the
4
court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111,
5
1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
2.
6
7
No Basis for Reconsideration
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration based upon facts and circumstances previously
8
considered and ruled upon. Limited communication skills and education and reliance on
9
fellow inmates in prosecuting matters do not reflect exceptional circumstances for
10
appointment of counsel. The Court has had before it hundreds of such cases which
11
have progressed through discovery, law and motion activity and even trial despite
12
plaintiff’s limited communication skills and education. These very arguments for
13
appointment of counsel were previously considered and rejected by the Court. (ECF
14
Nos. 98, 99.)
15
The record in this matter suggests that, even assuming the limitations he
16
asserts, Plaintiff can sufficiently prosecute what appears to be relatively straightforward
17
Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Rangel.
18
Plaintiff does not have a right to appointed counsel in this case. 28 U.S.C. §
19
1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled
20
on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff provides no basis for
21
granting a motion for reconsideration. He cites to no error, newly discovered evidence,
22
or other grounds supporting reconsideration.
23
24
25
B.
REQUEST FOR RECUSAL
1.
Legal Standard
A judge has an affirmative duty to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which
26
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455; Liteky v. United
27
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The substantive standard for recusal is “whether a
28
reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's
-3-
1
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d
2
1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997). The alleged bias must stem from an “extrajudicial source.”
3
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 544-56. Normally, rulings by a court during the course of a case
4
can not be extra-judicial conduct. See Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F. 2d 1034,
5
1045-46 (9th Cir. 1987); Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v.
6
Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F. 2d 1538, 1548 (9th Cir. 1988). Judicial bias or prejudice
7
formed during current or prior proceedings is sufficient for recusal only when the judge's
8
actions “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
9
impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.
10
2008). However, “expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even
11
anger” are not grounds for establishing bias or impartiality, nor are a judge's efforts at
12
courtroom administration. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56; Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1044.
13
Judicial rulings may support a motion for recusal only “in the rarest of circumstances.”
14
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; U.S. v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 1994).
15
16
2.
No Basis for Recusal
Plaintiff requests the undersigned consider recusing himself because, already
17
having granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, the Court has in fact
18
prejudged the case in favor of Defendant.
19
Issuance of a decision unfavorable to a party does not in and of itself constitute a
20
grounds for recusal. It does not do so here. There is a “presumption of honesty and
21
integrity in those serving as adjudicators.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556
22
U.S. 868, 891 (2009), citing Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975). The Court, in
23
ruling previously on the motion for summary judgment, did so on the basis of the very
24
narrow and specific issue of law. The Court of Appeals has rejected that ruling under
25
the circumstances. The Court will of course follow the mandate of the appellate court. In
26
that regard, it appears this case will proceed to trial by jury and likely present additional
27
facts and/or legal issues to be resolved by the jury and the judge, respectively, to
28
resolve. The Court has no predisposition one way or the other nor any bias for against
-4-
1
either party. The Court will be fair and impartial to both parties.
Plaintiff also has not asserted facts suggesting such a deep-seated favoritism on
2
3
the part of the undersigned as to make fair judgment impossible.1
4
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
Plaintiff has not met the burden imposed upon a party moving for
5
6
reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. He has not shown clear
7
error or other meritorious grounds for relief from the April 2, 2013 Order Denying Motion
8
Requesting Appointment of Counsel.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for recusal. The alleged grounds do not
9
10
stem from an extra-judicial source and Plaintiff makes no showing of deep-seated
11
favoritism on the part of the undersigned as to make fair judgment impossible.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
12
13
Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 2, 2013 Order Denying Motion
14
Requesting Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 100) and request for consideration of
15
recusal therein, are DENIED.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
12eob4
April 16, 2013
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
28 U.S.C. § 455 provides that recusal m otions “m ust be decided by the very judge
whose im partiality is being questioned”. In Re Bernard, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?