Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01904-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TREMAYNE CARROLL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1904-WBS-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. On January 22, 

2020, the court dismissed this action after plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or seek leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis and judgment was duly entered. ECF Nos. 9, 11, 12. On January 27, 

2020, plaintiff filed a document titled, “Objection to Dismissal/Ruling, Petition for 

Reconsideration, Extension of Time (60) days, Appointment of Counsel.” ECF No. 13. The 

court construes the filing as a request for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as a request for appointment of counsel. As discussed 

below, both motions must be denied. 

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment where one of more of the 

following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within 

twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an 

opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other 

Case 2:19-cv-01904-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiff states that he has been transferred 

numerous times and lost his property. ECF No. 13. To the extent plaintiff seeks relief from 

judgment on this basis, the motion must be denied. Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to pay 

the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis – he did neither, has not shown good 

cause for failing to do so, and has not satisfied the Rule 60(b) standards. Plaintiff’s motion for 

relief from judgment must be denied. 

Likewise, the request for counsel is denied. District courts may authorize the appointment 

of counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th 

Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) 

the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 

her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 

1017. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the complexity of the 

issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in what is now a closed case, 

amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF 

No. 13) is denied. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s “Petition for Reconsideration,” 

construed as motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 13), be denied. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01904-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: March 19, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01904-WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 3