Valencia v. Kokor

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/14/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
(Document 14)

14

WINFRED KOKOR,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in

17
18

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 30, 2013.1

19

On January 8, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint.

20

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time and the date for filing the amended complaint has not yet

21

passed.
On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 7, 2014,

22
23

denial of his request for counsel.
In the January 7, 2014, order, the Court recognized Plaintiff’s contention that he is disabled

24
25

by pain and cannot write to keep up with briefing in this action. The Court explained, however, that

26

absent medical documentation, the Court would not consider such a request. The Court also noted

27

that Plaintiff could request additional time, if necessary, to complete pleadings or meet deadlines.

28
1

On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

1

1

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff again argues that he suffers gripping issues with

2

his right hand and cannot hold a pen due to various ailments. However, Plaintiff’s continued

3

disagreement with the Court’s ruling is not grounds for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6);

4

Local Rule 230(j); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880

5

(9th Cir. 2009); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008).

6

There is no entitlement to counsel in this case, Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.

7

2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). At this stage of the proceedings,

8

there is no operative complaint, and the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed

9

on the merits.

10

To the extent that Plaintiff cites his disability as an exceptional circumstance, the Court notes

11

that Plaintiff has been able to file documents throughout this action, whether written by himself or

12

others, and has not had any trouble communicating with the Court. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;

13

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff cites “medical papers” filed in

14

this action, though it appears that the only relevant medical document is a report from 2008 noting

15

that Plaintiff would benefit from no strong gripping with this right hand and no heavy lifting. This

16

does not support a finding that Plaintiff is unable to write.

17

Insofar as Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction to provide pain medication that has

18

worked in the past, his request is denied. Without an operative complaint, the Court does not have

19

jurisdiction to order any equitable relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island

20

Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 14, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

27
28
2