Martin v. Woodford et al

Filing 60

RECONSIDERATION ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/17/2009. This Court DENIES Plaintiff's 50 Request for Reconsideration. (Bradley, A)

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 INTRODUCTION In this inmate civil rights action, pro se plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin ("plaintiff") seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES plaintiff reconsideration. BACKGROUND United States Magistrate Judge Dennis Beck issued his August 20, 2009 order ("August 20 order") to address plaintiff's request. On September 11, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the August 20 order. DISCUSSION Timeliness of Reconsideration Attempt This Court's Local Rule 72-303(b) addresses timing to seek reconsideration: Rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought 1 vs. JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et. al., Defendants. / CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. CV F 08-415 LJO DLB PC RECONSIDERATION ORDER (Doc. 50.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

from the Court within ten (10) court days calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties . . ." The August 20 order was served on plaintiff on August 20, 2009. Plaintiff had filed a motion for thirty day extension of time for reconsideration. This Court assumes without deciding that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is timely. This Court will turn to the merits of reconsideration of the August 20 order. Merits Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). This Court's Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party seeking reconsideration to demonstrate "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge's ruling under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge's order that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Rule 72(a)). "Under this standard of review, a magistrate's order is `clearly erroneous' if, after considering all of the evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, and the order is `contrary to law' when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Yent v. Baca, 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2002). "The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court." Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241. A district court is able to overturn a magistrate judge's ruling "`only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.'" Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting 2

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

Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff argues that he should be appointed counsel because his circumstances are exceptional and he is likely to succeed on the merits. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). While plaintiff has stated a claim, that is not necessarily an indication of likelihood of success on the merits. Even assuming plaintiff has a likelihood of success, this Court disagrees that his circumstances are exceptional. Having reviewed the court record, this Court finds t hat the legal issues presented are not sufficiently complex to justify appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's issues of needing assistance from other inmates and difficulties during discovery are not more exceptional than the circumstances facing other prisoner litigants in civil actions. Clearly, any pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, but that is not the test. Id. Plaintiff appears capable of articulating his positions. This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's August 20 order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff fails to substantiate the burden for reconsideration of the August 20 order, and this Court DENIES plaintiff's request for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 November 17, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3