Anderson v. Brown et al

Filing 38

ORDER Denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/11/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DION ANDERSON,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:12-cv-01839 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
[ECF No. 36]

14

15

JERRY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. On February 2,

20

2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for

21

reconsideration of the Court’s order denying appointment of counsel.

22

DISCUSSION

23

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, inadvertence,

24

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could

25

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

26

previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)

27

the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6)

28

“is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

only where extraordinary circumstances ...” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir.
2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both
injury and circumstances beyond his control....” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “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.”
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma
GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted,
and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's
decision, and recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its
decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001). To succeed, a
party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its
prior decision. See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.
1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff fails to meet the above standard. As previously stated, Plaintiff’s
case is not exceptional.

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.

22
23
24

Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: March 11, 2015

28

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
2