Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01038/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01038-4/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

LUIS GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEGADEO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01038-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER CONSTRUING OBJECTION AS

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND

DENYING MOTION

(Doc. 19)

Plaintiff Luis Garces (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 16, 2007, the Magistrate Judge

issued an order denied plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. On May 18, 2007, plaintiff

filed an objection, construed by the Court to be a motion for reconsideration. 

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), 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. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Case 1:06-cv-01038-JAT Document 20 Filed 05/22/07 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

Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

motion.”

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel

on the ground that he speaks Spanish and does not read or write in English. Only in the most

exceptional cases will the Court seek volunteer counsel. Rand v.Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s inability to read or write in English does not constitute an exceptional

circumstance.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection, construed as a motion for reconsideration, is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01038-JAT Document 20 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2