Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01651/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01651-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the March 30, 2015, order denying Plaintiff’s 

request for appointment of counsel. The Court construes Plaintiff’s “objections” as a motion for 

reconsideration. A response to this motion is unnecessary and matter is deemed submitted. Local 

Rule 230(l). 

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt, 

711 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 

1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 

induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 

634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 

(9th Cir. 1987). 

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE DAVIES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01651-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S 

MARCH 30, 2015, ORDER DENYING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 20]

Case 1:14-cv-01651-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

This Court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(a). As such, the court may only set aside those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s order 

that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and 

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir.1991) (discovery sanctions are non-dispositive 

pretrial matters that are reviewed for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). 

A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous” when the district court is left with 

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Security Farms v. International 

Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 489 (C.D. Cal. 

2003). The “‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Products of 

California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623

(1993).

The “contrary to law” standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal 

determinations by the magistrate judge. See Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd 

Cir.1992); Green, 219 F.R.D. at 489; see also Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 

2002). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or 

rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 

2008); Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.Supp.2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Surles v. Air 

France, 210 F.Supp.2d 501, 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F.Supp. 202, 205 

(N.D. Cal. 1983).

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s March 23, 2015, order denying him appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff contends that he is the subject of continual unconstitutional and malicious guard gang 

activities designed to prevent Plaintiff from litigating this action. The Magistrate Judge’s order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, without prejudice, was neither clearly 

erroneous nor contrary to law. As stated in the Magistrate Judge’s March 30, 2015, order, a finding of 

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and 

the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). There is no basis for the Court to 

Case 1:14-cv-01651-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

conclude that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, as Plaintiff has not presented 

cognizable claims for relief in this action. In addition, Plaintiff’s conclusory arguments, without 

supporting documentation, regarding his inability to prosecute this action are not exceptional 

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Indeed. Plaintiff has successful 

prosecuted this action, and Plaintiff’s present filing of objections to the Court’s March 23, 2015, order 

negates his claim that he is prevented from litigating this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01651-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 04/22/15 Page 3 of 3