Germany v. Coelho, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's October 17, 2017, Order Denying his Request for Appointment of Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/26/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANKIE L. GERMANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. M. COELHO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S OCTOBER 17, 2017, ORDER DENYING HIS REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 28] action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s October 17, 19 20 Case No.: 1:17-cv-00005-SAB (PC) Plaintiff Frankie L. Germany is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017, order denying his request for appointment of counsel, filed on October 25, 2017. Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 21 22 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. 23 Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature 24 to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 25 Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 26 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 27 /// 28 /// 1 As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 1 2 counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot 3 require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 4 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 5 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 6 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 7 8 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 9 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 10 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 11 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12 In denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, the Court stated the following: 13 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. This action is proceeding against Defendants M. Coelho, Garcia-Fernandez, P. Ward, and Hanson on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force, and the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED without prejudice. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Order at 2:4-12, ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff fails to present facts or law warrant reconsideration of the 21 prior denial of appointment of counsel in this case as Plaintiff simply repeats the same arguments. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 17, 2017, order denying his 23 request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 27 October 26, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?