Arellano v. Blahnik
Filing
93
ORDER Denying Objection to Magistrate Judge Order [Doc. No. 91 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 10/19/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAUL ARRELLANO,
Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-DHB
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER
[Doc. No. 91]
BLAHNIK,
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
On September 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block issue an order denying
19
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, motion to appoint counsel, and motion to allow
20
appeal. [Doc. No. 87.] On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection to that order.
21
[Doc. No. 91.]
22
Magistrate judges’ rulings on nondispositive motions may be set aside or modified
23
by the district court only if found to be “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28
24
U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404,
25
1414 (9th Cir. 1991).
26
Plaintiff has not made any showing that Judge Block’s order denying the motion
27
for counsel was “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Id. As noted by Judge Block,
28
the decision to appoint counsel is discretionary and may only be granted on a showing of
1
16cv2412-CAB-DHB
1
“exceptional circumstances. Terrell v. Brewer, 95 F.2 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The
2
fact that Plaintiff may find it difficult to obtain discovery due to his status as an inmate is
3
not an exceptional circumstance. And, in addition to the reasons stated by Judge Block,
4
Plaintiff’s health issues do not appear to hinder his ability to litigate, as he has recently
5
filed numerous motions in this case, as well as in the other six cases he currently has
6
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See
7
Arellano v. Hodge, 14cv590-JLS-JLB; Arellano v. Dean, 15cv2247-JLS-JLB; Arellano v.
8
Sedighi, 15cv2059-AJB-BGS; Arellano v. Milton, 15cv2069-JAH-AGS; Arellano v. Self,
9
15cv2300-AJB-JMA; Arellano v. San Diego County, 14cv2404-JLS-KSC. Therefore,
10
11
Judge Block’s decision to deny the motion for counsel was reasonable.
Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Block’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s request for an
12
immediate appeal is also OVERRULED. The denial of a motion for appointment of
13
counsel does not qualify as an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
14
15
16
17
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Order [Doc. No. 91] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2018
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv2412-CAB-DHB
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?