Varnell v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 82

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 79 Motion for Reconsideration of 75 Order denying 55 MOTION for Court Appointed Counsel, by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Mitchell Varnell, Prisoner ID: 871147)(GMR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

MITCHELL LEE VARNELL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05443-BHS-DWC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1, 4. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for
18
Reconsideration of Dkt# 75, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel
19
LCR 7(h)(1), CR 7(h)” (“Motion”). Dkt. 79. After reviewing the Motion and relevant record, the
20
Court denies the Motion as it does not meet the standard outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(h).
21
In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s
22
Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 79. On June 6, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
23
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 55) because Plaintiff did not show (1) the case
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
-1

1 involves complex facts or law; (2) an inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a
2 fashion understandable to the Court; or (3) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. Dkt.
3 75. In his Motion, Plaintiff reiterates he needs court appointed counsel because his injuries
4 make it difficult to file timely pleadings with the Court. Dkt. 79. He also states he has shown he
5 is likely to succeed on the merits based on the allegations contained in his Third Amended
6 Complaint. Id.
7

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be

8 denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which
9 could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence.
10

Plaintiff has not met the standard outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(h). Plaintiff fails to show

11 a manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling. Plaintiff also fails to provide new facts or legal
12 authority which could not have been presented earlier or show this case presents an “exceptional
13 circumstance” requiring the appointment of counsel. See Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525
14 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998); Wilborn v.
15 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
16

As the Motion does not meet the standard outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(h) or show

17 appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.
18

Dated this 6th day of July, 2016.

A

19
20

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
-2