Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00190/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00190-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph C. Holmes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Russell Barker, a Police Officer for the

City of Clinton, Tennessee, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-190-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On September 19, 2008, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel. Dkt. #19. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that

order. Dkt. #21.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502,

at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008); Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The arguments and evidence presented in support of the

instant motion do not change the Court’s prior conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that any difficulty he is experiencing in

attempting to litigate his case is due to the complexity of the issues involved. See Dkt. #19

at 2 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court did not abuse its discretion by

refusing to appoint counsel where the plaintiff had sufficient writing ability and legal

Case 2:08-cv-00190-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/19/08 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

- 2 -

knowledge to articulate his claim, the facts alleged and issues raised were not of substantial

complexity, and it was not likely that he would succeed on the merits). The Court

accordingly will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #21) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00190-DGC Document 30 Filed 11/19/08 Page 2 of 2