Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01038-21/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 Kevin Gunn is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending an 

interlocutory appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in case number 

13-17333. 

However, on December 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal in case number 

13-17333, and transferred the action back to this Court for resolution of his motion for reconsideration 

of the denial of counsel by the Magistrate Judge on October 8, 2013. (ECF No. 133.) Thus, because 

the Ninth Circuit has dismissed the appeal and transferred the case back to this Court for resolution, 

Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is construed as a motion for reconsideration by the undersigned 

pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 303, as instructed by the 

KEVIN GUNN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-01038-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STAY PROCEEDINGS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF Nos. 124, 132]

Case 1:08-cv-01038-SAB Document 134 Filed 01/02/14 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

Ninth Circuit. In his motion, Plaintiff argues the following: 1) he has not articulated his claims well 

because he has had several motions denied; 2) he has become depressed, overwhelmed, and required 

medical care in anticipation of the case proceeding to trial; 3) he is unfamiliar with the requirements 

for discovery, witness examination, and application of the rules of evidence; 4) he is unemployed, 

indigent, and cannot afford to hire an expert; 5) there are 80 witnesses to this action which presents a 

major problem because he does not have the ability to ascertain each witnesses location; and 6) the 

case involves complex legal issues. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district 

court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on various 

grounds, including 1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 2) newly discovered 

evidence; 3) fraud or misconduct by an opposing party; 4) a void judgment; 5) a satisfied judgment; or 

6) any other reason that justifies relief from the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 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). To succeed, 

a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its 

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). Further, 

when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show “what new or 

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” as well as “why the facts or circumstances 

were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be denied. The fact that some of Plaintiff’s motions

have been denied does not demonstrate that counsel is necessary. In addition, the lack of knowledge 

of the applicable procedures for proceeding to trial does not warrant the appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any circumstances different from any other Plaintiff who is 

proceeding pro se. As stated in the Magistrate Judge’s October 8, 2013, order denying the 

appointment of counsel, 

Case 1:08-cv-01038-SAB Document 134 Filed 01/02/14 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

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Even if it [is] assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made 

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitled him to relief, his case is not 

exceptional. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against two defendants for 

using excessive force. The legal issues present in this action are not complex, and 

Plaintiff has articulated his claims numerous times in pleadings filed in the action. The 

Court does not find exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel in this 

case. 

(ECF No. 123 at 2.) 

Plaintiff’s case is not complex, and he has failed to show any extraordinary circumstances, 

changed facts or circumstances, or other grounds for relief to warrant reconsideration, and the 

Magistrate Judge’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration must be denied. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the proceedings is DENIED as MOOT; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s October 8, 2013, order 

denying the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01038-SAB Document 134 Filed 01/02/14 Page 3 of 3