West v. Pettigrew et al

Filing 116

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/10/2014 DENYING 111 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MACK A. WEST,

12

2:11-cv-01692 JAM-CKD

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

RYAN PETTIGREW, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mack A. West’s

17
18

(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration by the District Court of

19

the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (Doc. #111). 1

20

file an opposition.

21

motion is DENIED.

Defendants did not

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s

22
I.

23

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil

24
25

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On December 2, 2013,

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(e). No hearing was
scheduled.
1

1

Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #105).

2

On December 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s

3

request because the required exceptional circumstances were not

4

present (Doc. #107).

5
6

II.

OPINION

7

A.

8

The standard for a Motion for Reconsideration is governed by

9

Legal Standard

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 303.

The district court “may

10

reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that

11

the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

12

law.”

13

standard of review under § 636(b)(1)(A) is highly deferential;

14

see United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968-69 (9th

15

Cir. 2001), and does not permit the reviewing court to substitute

16

its own judgment for that of the magistrate judge’s.

17

City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir.

18

1991).

28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L. R. 303(f).

The

Grimes v.

19

B.

Discussion

20

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

21

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

A

22

court may appoint counsel in a civil case under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d)

23

only under “exceptional circumstances.”

24

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

25

circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of

26

success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to

27

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

28

legal issues involved.’”

Terrell v. Brewer, 935

“A finding of exceptional

Id. (citation omitted).
2

1

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s order is

2

clearly erroneous because it fails to take into consideration his

3

physical and mental impairments.

4

he has been appointed counsel in another case in the Eastern

5

District of California, West v. Grounds, 2:09-cv-03147 KJM-AC.

6

However, that case concerns a petition for writ of habeas corpus

7

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the magistrate judge made

8

the finding that the case involved complex issues, including

9

developing the facts of his equitable tolling claim.

In addition, he mentions that

West v.

10

Grounds, 2:09-cv-03147 KJM-AC (Doc. #124). The case at hand is a

11

civil rights lawsuit for violation of the Eighth Amendment and

12

Plaintiff has not identified any particular issue of substantial

13

complexity.

14

writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claims.

15

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the

16

Magistrate Judge’s ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to

17

law.”

Further, Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient

18
19
20

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

21

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

22

Ruling.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED

24

Dated:

January 10, 2014

25
26
27
28
3