Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01243-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE L. MARSH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. VEGIANELLI, et al.,

Defendants. 

___________________________/

1:09-cv-01243-GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. 17.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Lawrence L. Marsh (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint on July 17, 2009.

On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order of

November 30, 2009, which denied his motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D. C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01243-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In his first motion for appointment of counsel, filed on August 31, 2009, Plaintiff

requested counsel based on his inability to litigate this action due to mental incapacity, frequent

hospitalization, physical weakness, forgetfulness, and urgency of his claim. (Docs. 6, 7.) 

Plaintiff based his prior motions for reconsideration on his mental and physical incapacities, his

inexperience with the law, the complexity of his case, and his likelihood of success in this

action. (Docs. 8, 9, 10.) In his prior renewed motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff

argued he requires counsel to engage in discovery, schedule a pretrial conference, and prepare a

settlement offer to defendants in this action. (Doc. 12.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests

consideration of his prison confinement coupled with the complexity of his serious medical

conditions and anxiety, and his inability to litigate and investigate. Plaintiff also contends he

has a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances to merit

reconsideration of the Court’s order denying appointment of counsel, and the Court has

previously advised Plaintiff that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the motion for

reconsideration shall be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, filed January 6, 2010, is DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 16, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01243-AWI-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2