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)

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