Sanchez vs. John Doe et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge David W. Christel.(MET) cc: plaintiff

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

8
9
10

JOSEPH FLORES SANCHEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05201-BHS-DWC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE,
WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, MARGARET
GILBERT, JANE 1-3 DOE, DENNIS
CHERRY, JOHN DOE CORNWELL,

16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights Complaint
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
20
Reconsideration for Denying Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”). Dkt. 11. After reviewing the
21
Motion and relevant record, the Court denies the Motion as it does not meet the standard outlined
22
in Local Civil Rule 7(h).
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s

2 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 11. On April 22, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 8) because Plaintiff did not show (1) the case involves
4 complex facts or law; (2) an inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion
5 understandable to the Court; or (3) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. Dkt. 10. In
6 his Motion, Plaintiff reiterates he needs court appointed counsel because he lacks the skill and
7 knowledge to present his case and will fail without the assistance of counsel. Dkt. 11.
8

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

9 denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which
10 could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence.
11

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

12 a manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling. Plaintiff also fails to provide new facts or legal
13 authority which could not have been presented earlier or show this case presents an “exceptional
14 circumstance” requiring the appointment of counsel. See Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525
15 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998); Wilborn v.
16 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
17

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

18 appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is
19 denied.
20

Dated this 5th day of May, 2016.

A

21
22

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2