Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01653/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01653-16/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 Allen is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior 

orders denying his requests for appointment of counsel, filed April 1, 2020. (ECF No. 40.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

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

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); 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, 

KEVIN ALLEN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. RIMBACH, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-01653-NONE-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

COURT’S PRIOR ORDERS DENYING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 40)

Case 1:18-cv-01653-DAD-SAB Document 41 Filed 04/02/20 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

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, “ ‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation...’” of that which was already considered 

by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 

Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F.Supp. 834, 856 (D N.J. 1992)). 

Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking reconsideration show that “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 Plaintiff was previously advised, he 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 any 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 (1989). However, in certain 

exceptional 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 on 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 denying Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, the Court stated the 

following:

As with Plaintiff’s prior motion for appointment of counsel, he contends he is dyslexic, 

illiterate and requires the assistance of another inmate to draft his documents. However, 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. Circumstances common to most prisoners, 

such as a lack of education or limited law library access, do not alone establish exceptional 

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. The legal 

issues present in this action are not complex. Further, Defendant has not yet filed an answer, 

and at this early stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits. Further, there is no indication from the record that Plaintiff has been 

unable to adequately articulate claims and prosecute this action—whether alone or with inmate 

assistance. 

Case 1:18-cv-01653-DAD-SAB Document 41 Filed 04/02/20 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

(Order at 2:4-14, ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff fails to present facts or law to warrant reconsideration of the 

prior denial of appointment of counsel in this case as Plaintiff simply repeats most of the same 

arguments. Plaintiff simply presents the same arguments and circumstances that were previously 

considered by the Court. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)

(“A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court ‘to rethink what the court had 

already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’ ... However, if the court has made an apparent error of 

law and the party moving for reconsideration brings that error to the court’s attention within a 

reasonable period of time, the district court has the power under Rule 60(b)(1) to grant relief from that 

error.”). While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s condition and circumstances, the test is not 

whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation 

and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the 

case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, they do not. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration shall be denied. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior 

orders denying his requests for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01653-DAD-SAB Document 41 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3