Aidnik v. California Medical Facility et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/24/09 ORDERING that the court reaffirms its 32 order denying Pltf's motion for appointment of counsel and denies his 33 motion for reconsideration. (Engbretson, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Before the court is the plaintiff's objection (#33) to the 21 court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel (#32), 22 which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. 23 As previously noted by this court, the required exceptional 24 circumstances do not exist in this case. 25 complex, the plaintiff has demonstrated a grasp of the relevant law 26 and an ability to present his case, and at this early stage in the 27 proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff 28 1 The issues are not JEFF AIDNIK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) 2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is likely to succeed on the merits.

Plaintiff argues that he needs

an attorney because as a prisoner he will be unable to access the personnel files of the defendants. Plaintiff has not cited, nor is

the court able to find, any law stating pro se prisoner plaintiffs may only access properly discoverable personnel files through appointed counsel. The plaintiff's access to the defendants' In order for plaintiff

personnel files is a matter for discovery.

to access any part of those files, he will have to show there is relevant, discoverable information contained therein. Appointing

counsel on the basis that plaintiff cannot otherwise access personnel files assumes he will be able to make this requisite showing. Plaintiff has made no effort to meet this standard, nor

is such a determination proper at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court hereby reaffirms its order denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (#32) and denies his motion for reconsideration (#33). DATED: This 24th day of August, 2009.

____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2