(PC) Jones v. C.D.C.R. et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Reconsideration of Order denying Motion to Appoint Counsel 21 ; DENYING Plaintiff's Motion regarding Property 22 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/6/2025. (Deputy Clerk TEL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EUGENE JONES,

12

Case No. 1:24-cv-01298-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL
(ECF No. 21)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REGARDING PROPERTY
(ECF No. 22)

Procedural Background

19

Plaintiff Eugene Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet

21

been screened.

22

On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 6.) On

23

November 13, 2024, the Court issued an order denying the motion, without prejudice, finding that

24

Plaintiff had not met the required exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel. (ECF

25

No. 9.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two requests for the Court to reconsider its order denying

26

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 13, 16.) Both motions were denied because

27

they raised the same arguments made in Plaintiff’s original motion to appoint counsel and did not

28

provide a basis to reverse the Court’s prior order. (ECF No. 20.)
1

1

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third request for the Court to reconsider its order

2

denying Plaintiff’s motion for counsel. (ECF No. 21.) On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff also filed

3

a motion regarding his property. (ECF No. 22.) Both motions are denied, for the reasons

4

explained below.

5

II.

Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel

6

As in his prior motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him

7

counsel due to various mental and physical medical issues. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff argues that

8

he has important papers to submit to the Court to support his claims in this action, but he has been

9

unable to get his belongings following his transfer from Wasco State Prison to Lancaster State

10

Prison. (Id.)

11

As Plaintiff was previously informed, “[a] motion for reconsideration should not be

12

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

13

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

14

law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th

15

Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration

16

must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that

17

which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United States v. Westlands

18

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts

19

or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern–

20

Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part

21

and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant to this

22

Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or

23

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon

24

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

25

Again, Plaintiff raises the same arguments, and has failed to present any new or different

26

facts or circumstances that did not exist or were not shown in his previous motions. Plaintiff is

27

advised that the Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his physical and mental health

28

concerns as true, and supporting documents or evidence are not necessary to support his request
2

1

for counsel. Even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s

2

situation meets the “exceptional circumstances” appropriate to appoint counsel in this action.

3

Plaintiff’s renewed motion for reconsideration is therefore denied for the same reasons

4

articulated in the Court’s prior order. (ECF No. 20.)
Plaintiff has now filed three separate requests for reconsideration of the Court’s order

5
6

denying his motion to appoint counsel. None of these motions includes new or different

7

information that would make reconsideration appropriate. Such repetitive filings waste the

8

Court’s limited resources and delays the resolution of this action. Plaintiff is warned that filing

9

additional baseless motions, needlessly multiplying the proceedings, wasting judicial

10

resources, or otherwise submitting filings in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment,

11

may subject him to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. “Rule 11 is

12

intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of ‘reasonable inquiry’ so

13

that anything filed with the court is ‘well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not interposed for

14

any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of So. Cal. v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir.

15

2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)).

16

III.

Motion Regarding Property

17

In his motion regarding property, Plaintiff states that since his transfer from Wasco State

18

Prison to Lancaster State Prison over a month ago, he has not received his property, even though

19

two other individuals who were transferred without property at the same time now have their

20

belongings. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff has submitted numerous request slips to the property officer

21

at Lancaster and Wasco without any relief. In his property are papers he needs to send to the

22

Court to support his claims in this action. Plaintiff submitted a grievance that was reassigned to

23

Wasco, and gives CDCR two months to respond. Plaintiff believes his property has been

24

disposed of by Wasco officials and requests the Court’s assistance. (Id.)

25

Plaintiff is reminded that while exhibits are permissible if incorporated by reference into

26

the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice

27

pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Court strongly suggests to Plaintiff that they should not be

28

submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2) they are
3

1

intended as future evidence. If this action reaches a juncture at which the submission of evidence

2

is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the opportunity

3

at that time to submit his evidence.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion regarding his property is denied, to the extent he argues that

4
5

access to his property is necessary so he can submit paperwork to support his claims in this

6

action. At the pleading stage, the Court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and

7

documents or other evidence are not necessary to support Plaintiff’s allegations.

8

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison

9

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v.

10

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties

11

in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555

12

U.S. at 491?93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

13

To the extent Plaintiff believes his rights are being violated, he has other avenues of relief

14

available to him, including filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. E.g., People

15

v. Brewer, 235 Cal. App. 4th 122, 138, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104, 114 (2015) (a California trial court

16

may grant habeas corpus petitioners prospective relief to redress recurring, persistent deprivations

17

of prisoners’ rights at correctional facilities). The issue is not that Plaintiff’s allegations are not

18

serious or that he is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. The issue is that this

19

action cannot be used by Plaintiff obtain the relief he seeks. The seriousness of Plaintiff’s

20

allegations concerning deprivation of his property do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar.

21

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury

22

in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy

23

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its

24

existence.”)

25

IV.

26
27
28

Order
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 21), is DENIED;
4

1

2. Plaintiff’s motion regarding property, (ECF No. 22), is DENIED; and

2

3. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe

January 6, 2025

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5