Taylor v. Patel et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/10/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DELTON L. TAYLOR, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 v. HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al., CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01754-DAD-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 54) Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 16, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 20 March 17, 2017, motion to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 43; 47.) In that order, the Court 21 concluded that even if it were assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that 22 he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is 23 not exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel, which is not constitutionally 24 guaranteed in civil actions. (ECF No. 47 at 2.) 25 On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order 26 denying motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 54.) In the motion for 27 reconsideration, Plaintiff repeats the same arguments offered in the initial motion for 28 appointment of counsel. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he cannot afford counsel, that 1 he is not well-versed in the law, and that his case presents complex legal and factual 2 issues requiring the appointment of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff does not address the Court’s 3 order denying appointment, nor present reasons why that order is factually or legally 4 incorrect. (Id.) 5 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 6 circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 7 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 8 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 10 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id. 11 Furthermore, “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement 12 with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered 13 by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 14 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. 15 Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking 16 reconsideration show that “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 17 which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 18 exist for the motion[.]” 19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 20 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an 21 attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States 22 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain 23 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 24 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable 25 method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel 26 only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional 27 circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the 28 2 1 merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 3 As stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration merely reiterates the 4 arguments made in the initial motion. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff does not present new or 5 different circumstances that require the Court to reconsider its prior order or find the 6 initial order was legally incorrect. (Id.) The Court’s review of the initial order finds that it 7 presents sound reasoning for denial of the motion. Plaintiff’s circumstances are not 8 exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early 9 stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 10 succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does 11 not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 12 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 54) is DENIED. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?