Snow v. Kay

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 5, 2016, Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/22/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WILLIAM L. SNOW, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR SHWE, Defendant. 16 17 Case No.: 1:15-cv-01606-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S DECEMBER 5, 2016, ORDER [ECF No. 33] Plaintiff William L. Snow is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 5.) 20 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 5, 2016, order denying him appointment of counsel, filed December 19, 2016. 22 I. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 25 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 26 Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 27 to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 28 Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 1 1 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 2 3 counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot 4 require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 5 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 6 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 7 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 8 9 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 10 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 11 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 12 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error, or presented the Court with 13 14 new information of a strongly convincing nature, to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. At 15 this point in the proceedings, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has the required exceptional 16 circumstances. Although Plaintiff contends that he is legally blind, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that 17 such circumstances have hindered his ability in prosecuting this action. Plaintiff’s reliance on “prison 18 litigator’s is not an extraordinary circumstance in this instance. As stated in the Court’s December 5, 19 2016, order, Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing the request for appointment of counsel at a later 20 stage of the proceedings, if appropriate. (Order at 2:14-16, ECF No. 27.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 21 motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 5, 2016, order denying him appointment of 22 counsel is denied. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: 26 December 22, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

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?