Hall v. Frauenheim et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's November 4, 2016, 26 Order Denying Him Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/22/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD B. HALL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00263-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
NOVEMBER 4, 2016, ORDER DENYING HIM
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 26]

Plaintiff Richard B. Hall is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “brief presenting new evidence relating to counsel

20

request motion …”, filed November 18, 2016. To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the

21

Court’s November 4, 2016, order denying appointment of counsel in this case, the request must be

22

denied.

23

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

24

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.

25

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

26

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

27

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds,

28

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
1

1
2

As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed

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.

8
9

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
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).

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

In denying Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel in November 4, 2016, the
Court stated the following:
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff
contends that his classification as a participant in the Developmental Disability Program has
rendered him unable to effectively prosecute this action. While Plaintiff has alleged difficulty
in his potential ability to articulate his claims pro se due to his disability, the Court does not
find that the exceptional factors necessary to justify appointment of counsel exist in this case,
at the present time. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education
and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a
request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In addition, Plaintiff’s current motion
demonstrates that Plaintiff (and/or his current inmate assistant) understands the process and
how to file documents. Furthermore, the Court cannot evaluate the likelihood of success of the
merits as Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief. The record in this case demonstrates sufficient writing ability and
legal knowledge to articulate the claims asserted, even if such filings are done with the
assistance of other inmates. In addition, the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s demonstrate that
Plaintiff has assistance under the Developmental Disability Program to help with access to the
law library access and materials necessary for court filings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second
motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice.

25
26

(ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff fails to present facts or law warrant reconsideration of the prior denial of

27

appointment of counsel in this case. Plaintiff simply repeats the same arguments and submits further

28

documentation which shows that although he is a participant in the Developmental Disability Program,
2

1

he has access to assistance within such program. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

2

of the Court’s November 4, 2016, order denying his second request for appointment of counsel is

3

DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

November 22, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3