Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00210/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00210-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM NEUFELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MACK WIMBISH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00210-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TO SET

ASIDE JUDGMENT

(Doc. 15)

Plaintiff William Neufeld (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner who was proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend within thirty days. On March

20, 2007, after substantially more than thirty days passed and plaintiff failed to comply with or

otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this action,

without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff did not file

a response and on June 15, 2007, the Court dismissed this action, without prejudice, for failure to

obey a court order and failure to state a claim. Any objection was due within twenty days. On June

22, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting permission to re-file his case and for the appointment

of counsel.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

Case 1:06-cv-00210-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/28/07 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

circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

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 entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. Further, this action has been dismissed and the Court therefore cannot

make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of

the record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Id. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion to re-file, plaintiff’s case was dismissed without prejudice

and plaintiff is therefore free to file a new action, subject to the statute of limitations. To the extent

that plaintiff’s motion is construed as one to set aside judgment and reopen this action, plaintiff’s

motion is denied for the foregoing reasons. 

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

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse

party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not

more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00210-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/28/07 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

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), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988). The Ninth Circuit

has stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id. 

Plaintiff contends that he was found incompetent and sent to Patton State Hospital on January

25, 2007, and returned to the Santa Barbara County Jail on June 14, 2007, for further proceedings.

Plaintiff has a duty to keep the Court informed of any changes in his address. Local Rule 83-182(f).

Plaintiff failed to do so for a period of at least eight months. (Docs. 9, 10, 12.) Plaintiff has set forth

no grounds entitling him to relief from final judgment in this case, and his motion is denied.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and to set aside

judgment, filed June 22, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00210-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3