Medina v. Kelso et al
Filing
24
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Counsel and for Reconsideration 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/1/13: Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint-blank form) (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAY MEDINA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
J. CLARK KELSO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Case No.: 1:12-cv-01685-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
COUNSEL AND FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 20)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS
Plaintiff Ray Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and for
20
reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, with
21
leave to amend, for failure to state a claim,. (ECF No. 20.) No other parties have appeared
22
in this action. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s motions are now before the Court.
23
I.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
24
A.
Legal Standard
25
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any
26
reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to
27
prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist.
28
1
1
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations marks and citation omitted).
2
The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id.
3
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part,
4
that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which
5
did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the
6
motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
7
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
8
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
9
committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn
10
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)
11
(internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must
12
show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that
13
which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” United States v.
14
Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
15
B.
Discussion
16
Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s decision and seeks reconsideration of the
17
screening order dismissing, with leave to amend, his First Amended Complaint. In screening
18
the First Amended Complaint, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations and found they did
19
not state a cognizable claim. The Court explained the deficiencies in each purported claim,
20
identified the legal standards applicable to each, and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file a
21
new pleading.
22
Reconsideration is not a vehicle to obtain a second bite at the apple; it is reserved for
23
extraordinary circumstances. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131; see also In re
24
Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) may
25
provide relief where parties were confronted with extraordinary circumstances but it does not
26
provide a second chance for parties who made deliberate choices). Plaintiff’s disagreement
27
with the Court’s decision is not grounds for reconsideration.
28
2
1
II.
2
3
4
5
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
6
7
8
9
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance
of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer
counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional
10
circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the
11
merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
12
13
of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This
Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings,
the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and
based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot
adequately articulate his claims. Id.
III.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 20) is DENIED;
2.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint;
3.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED without
prejudice; and
28
3
4.
1
2
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this
action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
3
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
11
12
October 1, 2013
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:
ci4d6
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?