Arellano v. Blahnik
Filing
87
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; Motion to Appoint Counsel; and Motion to Allow Appeal (ECF No. 85 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block on 9/25/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
Case No.: 16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
RAUL ARELLANO,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL; AND
MOTION TO ALLOW APPEAL
v.
BLAHNIK,
Defendant.
16
(ECF NO. 85)
17
18
19
On September 11, 2018, plaintiff Raul Arellano (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner
20
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion, nunc pro tunc to September 10,
21
2018, (1) for the Court to reconsider its denial of plaintiff’s motion for counsel (ECF No.
22
81); (2) to appoint counsel under new facts; and (3) to allow appeal. (ECF No. 85.) For
23
the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motions.
24
25
Motion for Reconsideration
26
In the Southern District of California, a party may apply for reconsideration
27
“[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been
28
made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part.” CivLR 7.1(i)(1). The moving
1
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
1
party must provide an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, new or different facts and
2
circumstances which previously did not exist. Id.
3
Generally, reconsideration of a prior order is “appropriate if the district court (1) is
4
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision
5
was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch.
6
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
7
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality
8
and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
9
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration
10
is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041,
11
1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). A party may not raise new
12
arguments or present new evidence if it could have reasonably raised them earlier. Kona
13
Enters., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th
14
Cir. 1999)).
15
In its August 15, 2018 order, on which the present reconsideration motion is based,
16
the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for counsel based on his alleged vision impairment and
17
his contention that the impairment would prejudice his ability to respond to interrogatories
18
and document requests propounded by defendant. (See ECF No. 81 at 2.) In doing so, the
19
Court noted that “a pro se litigant’s difficulty conducting discovery is insufficient to satisfy
20
the exceptional circumstances standard.” (See id., citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d
21
1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Court further noted that “plaintiff has not even purported
22
to demonstrate a likelihood of success of the merits” or “to make a showing that he is
23
experiencing any difficulty in attempting to litigate his case as a result of the complexity
24
of his claims.” (See id.) In denying the motion, the Court also noted that the following
25
two considerations further militated against granting plaintiff’s motion: “(a) the Ninth
26
Circuit’s recent denial of plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel based on his alleged
27
vision impairment, and (b) defendant’s willingness to extend the deadline to complete
28
discovery and other deadlines as an accommodation to plaintiff’s claimed medical
2
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
1
condition.” (See id. at 2-3.)
2
In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff does not raise any new facts or
3
circumstances regarding his alleged vision impairment. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 55, 58, 61,
4
65, 74, 76, 78, 85.) Instead, plaintiff contends that he needs counsel because he is in need
5
“of many things for discovery that only a lawyer can get,” such as the names and schedules
6
of witnesses who are no longer working at the prison where the alleged incident occurred,
7
D.O.M. prison rules for the year in question, and video of the law library for the dates in
8
question. (See ECF No. 85 at 5.) Plaintiff also contends that the Court should consider his
9
other mental disabilities, which include anxiety, depression, and delusions, as well as his
10
diabetes, insomnia, neuropathy pain in his legs, neck pain, head pain due to nerve damage
11
and migraines, and uncontrollable seizures that give him memory loss for days. (See id. at
12
6.) Plaintiff further contends that he takes a lot of medications that are ineffective to
13
alleviate his symptoms of pain, but that create a lot of side effects, including sleepiness,
14
dizziness, and lack of comprehension. (See id.) Based on the foregoing, plaintiff contends
15
that “it could be inferred that [his] mind is not well [enough] to be able to comprehend,
16
[and] retain information,” and he “will be unable to go through [the] discovery process to
17
get all [of the] evidence” he needs. (See id.) Lastly, plaintiff contends that a lawyer would
18
assist him in explaining to the “jury and Court how all law library process of inmate’s
19
copy’s take place.” (See id.)
20
The Court does not find these new arguments and evidence proper grounds for a
21
motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., 5 F.3d at 1263; Kona
22
Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. As such, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court
23
will, however, address them in plaintiff’s renewed motion for counsel below.
24
25
Motion for Counsel
26
As the Court previously has advised plaintiff, “there is no absolute right to counsel
27
in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360,
28
1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to
3
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
1
make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490
2
U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564,
3
569 (9th Cir. 1995). Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
4
1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing
5
of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);
6
Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional
7
circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and
8
the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
9
legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed
10
together before reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
11
1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
12
As discussed above, plaintiff is now contending that he needs counsel because he is
13
unable to obtain certain discovery due to his status as an inmate. (See ECF No. 85 at 5.)
14
Plaintiff is also contending that counsel would assist him in explaining his case to the Court
15
and a jury, and that counsel is needed because plaintiff lacks comprehension skills due to
16
his mental impairments, pain, and the side effects from his medication, and as such would
17
be unable to conduct discovery. (See id.)
18
For the same reasons stated in the Court’s prior order, the Court denies plaintiff’s
19
renewed motion for counsel. (See ECF No. 81.) Plaintiff has still not demonstrated a
20
likelihood of success on the merits1 or an inability to articulate his claims pro se in light of
21
the complexity of the legal issues involved. (See id.) Thus, plaintiff has failed to make the
22
requisite showing of exceptional circumstances.
23
As previously stated, plaintiff’s difficulty obtaining discovery is insufficient to
24
satisfy the exceptional circumstances standard. (See id.) As the Ninth Circuit stated in
25
26
27
28
1
Although plaintiff’s access-to-court claim survived defendant’s motion to
dismiss, it is still too early to determine the likelihood of success on the merits. Without
more, it is not certain whether plaintiff’s claim will survive summary judgment. See
Garcia v. Smith, 2012 WL 2499003, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012).
4
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
1
Wilborn, plaintiff’s difficulty or extreme hardship in obtaining discovery is not the
2
standard. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Although certain discovery may be essential, “the
3
need for such discovery does not necessarily qualify the issues involved as ‘complex.’” Id.
4
The Ninth Circuit elaborated:
5
Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro
se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary
to support the case. If all that was required to establish successfully the
complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for
development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex
legal issues. Thus, although [the plaintiff] may have found it difficult to
articulate his claims pro se, he has neither demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits nor shown that the complexity of the issues involved
was sufficient to require designation of counsel.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Id.
13
Thus, a plaintiff’s difficulty or inability to obtain certain discovery does meet the
14
standard for appointment for counsel.2 Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate an inability to
15
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Plaintiff’s
16
claim in this case not legally “complex.”3 See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d
17
1101, 1104 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing.
18
To the extent that plaintiff requests counsel due to comprehension issues based on
19
his various medical conditions and/or pain medications, the Court finds that plaintiff has
20
not demonstrated any comprehension issues or an inability to articulate his claims and
21
present his case to this point. For example, as defendant’s counsel stated after meeting
22
with plaintiff in person on May 16, 2018, “[a]lthough the deposition did not go forward,
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court notes that if plaintiff propounds (or has propounded) specific
discovery requests, which defendant objects to, plaintiff may avail himself of the Court’s
chambers rules governing discovery disputes.
3
Plaintiff asserts in his motion that “[t]his type of case can be disputed at trial
on basis of credibility without corrobrat[ing] evidence on either party.” (See ECF No. 85
at 8.)
5
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
1
Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel discussed the case at length, including complex legal
2
issues in the case. For example, Plaintiff discussed the difference between forward-looking
3
and backward-looking claims as they relate to the favorable termination doctrine set forth
4
in Heck v. Humphrey, as analyzed in Christopher v. Harbury. Two days later, on May 18,
5
2018, Defendants’ counsel received a five-page tightly single-spaced, but legible,
6
handwritten letter, with a May 16, 2018 date on the envelope, further discussing issues in
7
that case.” (See ECF No. 59 at 2 (internal citations omitted).) In a subsequent filing,
8
plaintiff recalled that discussion and stated that he was able to discuss those cases because
9
he had them memorized. (See ECF No. 65 at 3.) Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated any
10
cognitive issues that would impair his ability to litigate his case.
11
demonstrated the opposite, by filing multiple, coherent motions before this Court
12
advocating his positions, and demonstrating a keen diligence in pursuing this case.
Instead, he has
13
Lastly, although counsel may assist plaintiff in explaining his case to the Court and
14
a jury, plaintiff has demonstrated that he is capable of articulating his claims, which are
15
typical, straightforward, and not legally “complex.” See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1104.
16
17
Since plaintiff still has failed to make the requisite showing of exceptional
circumstances, plaintiff’s motion for counsel again is DENIED.
18
To the extent plaintiff’s is requesting permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit the
19
Court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, his request is denied.4 In Wilborn,
20
789 F.2d at 1330, the Ninth Circuit held that the denial of a § 1983 plaintiff’s request for
21
counsel was not immediately appealable as a “collateral order” exception to the final
22
judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court further finds that this Order denying
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Plaintiff contends that the Court’s denial of his motion for counsel would
amount to a First Amendment violation because he is unable to conduct legal research in
the law library due to his visual impairment, and the library does not have sufficient
accommodation for his impairment. (See ECF No. 85 at 7-8.) The Court notes, however,
that plaintiff raised the same concerns in his prior motions for counsel, and the Court has
addressed them. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 65, 66, 76, 81.)
6
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
1
plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel does not involve a controlling question of
2
law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
3
appeal from this Order would not materially advance the ultimate termination of this case,
4
for purposes of the Order qualifying as an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 1292(b). However, nothing precludes plaintiff from serving and filing objections to this
6
Order with the District Judge within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed. R.
7
Civ. P. 72(a).
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2018
ROBERT N. BLOCK
United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
16-cv-02412-CAB (RNB)
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?