Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814-10/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

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 39)

Plaintiff, Lawrence Christopher Smith, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

October 1, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) His pleadings have been screened with leave to amend and 

Plaintiff has filed amended complaints such that this action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Third 

Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 31, 33.) Upon initiating this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

appointment of legal counsel, which was denied on October 5, 2010. (ECF Nos. 3, 6.) More than 

three years later, on November 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration thereon which 

is presently before the Court.1 (ECF No. 39.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order 

 

1 That same date, another motion by Plaintiff for appointment of counsel was filed on the docket. See (ECF No. 38). 

Based on Plaintiff's reference in his motion for reconsideration to both a supporting motion and a declaration, it 

appears that Plaintiff intended this document to support his motion for reconsideration rather than to be filed as a 

second motion seeking appointment of counsel. Thus, the contents of the second motion for appointment of counsel , 

though denied by separate order, have been reviewed and considered in arriving at the decision delineated herein. 

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 11/07/13 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

for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) Ais to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy 

to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .@

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and 

citation omitted). The moving party Amust demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control . . . .@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show Awhat 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,@ and Awhy the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 

the prior motion.@ 

AA motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the controlling law,@ and it Amay not be used to raise arguments 

or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation.@ Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff has not shown any new or different facts or circumstances, newly discovered 

evidence, commission of clear error, or an intervening change of law to support his motion. 

Plaintiff=s mere disagreement with the Court=s ruling, which is all that is shown in the instant 

motion, is not grounds for reconsideration. 

Despite the fact that Plaintiff would prefer to proceed in this action represented by 

counsel, he does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action. 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 

(9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915(e)(1), but will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. In 

making this determination, the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved must be 

evaluated. Id. Neither consideration is dispositive; they must be viewed together. Id. Plaintiff=s 

disagreement with the Court=s order is not sufficient to support his motion for reconsideration. 

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 11/07/13 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

Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to prevail on the merits and the record demonstrates 

that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims pro se.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed November 1, 2013 (ECF No. 39) 

is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 40 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 3