Washington v. Nangalama et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/25/2014 AFFIRMING the court's 1/31/2014 order denying plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH WASHINGTON,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0232 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court reconsider the January

18

31, 2014 denial of plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. A ruling may be reconsidered

19

under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J,

20

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is

21

appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error

22

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

23

law. Id. at 1263.

24

While plaintiff points to additional evidence in support of his request for the appointment

25

of counsel, the court still does not find that there are exceptional circumstances warranting this

26

court requesting the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1515(e)(1).

27
28

Accordingly, after a de novo review of the denial of plaintiff’s request for the appointment
of counsel precipitated by plaintiff’s February 20, 2014 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 6),

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s January 31, 2014 order denying plaintiff’s motion for

2

the appointment of counsel is affirmed.

3

Dated: March 25, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1
wash232.mfr

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2