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)

Download PDF
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

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?