Johnson v. Cox et al

Filing 53

ORDER Denying 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/27/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RANDY JOHNSON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JAMES COX, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01326-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 43)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel. Docket No. 43.

17

Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 48. No reply has been filed. The Court finds

18

this motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed

19

below, the motion is hereby DENIED.

20

United States District Judge James C. Mahan previously denied Plaintiff’s motions for

21

appointment of counsel in this case. Docket No. 7 at 11 (denying motions at Docket Nos. 2, 6). As

22

such, Plaintiff’s motion is more properly framed as one seeking reconsideration. Motions for

23

reconsideration are disfavored. E.g., Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, *2 (D.

24

Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing Japan Cash Mach. Co. v. Mei, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 98778, *7 (D.

25

Nev. Nov. 20, 2008)). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

26

discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if

1

there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Kabo Tools, 2013 WL 5947138, at *2 (quoting

2

Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2004)).

3

In this instance, Plaintiff argues that this is a complex case in which Plaintiff is not able to

4

adequately present his claims. See Docket No. 43 at 2. These are the same considerations that were

5

already presented to Judge Mahan,1 and he rejected them. See Docket No. 7 at 11. Accordingly, it

6

appears that the issues raised have already been resolved and Plaintiff provides no reason to reconsider

7

the previous ruling.

8

The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: January 27, 2016

11
12
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Indeed, it appears that the pending motion is identical to the motion previously filed, other than
the date. Compare Docket No. 43 with Docket No. 2.
2