Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00055-10/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

PETER BURCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANE DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00055-NONE-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 61)

Plaintiff Peter Burchett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that on January 31, 2018, 

at least eight peace officers attacked him and sprayed him with pepper spray “for no reason but 

physical torture.” (Doc. No. 16 at 5.) 

On November 15, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that “[t]his case proceed on Plaintiff’s excessive force claims 

against the eight Doe Defendants that allegedly attacked him on January 31, 2018, and defendant 

Ramirez,” and that “[a]ll other claims and defendants be dismissed.” (Doc. No. 53 at 7.) Plaintiff 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations on December 20, 2019. (Doc. No. 55.) The 

previously assigned district judge adopted those findings and recommendations in full. (Doc. No. 

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 63 Filed 02/10/20 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

57.) On January 30, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order adopting the 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 61.) In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff also 

requests appointment of pro bono counsel. (Id.).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 

longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

As to Rule 60(b)(6), plaintiff “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v. 

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). 

Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from 

taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotations marks omitted). 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is difficult to decipher. In any event, the motion 

clearly does not set forth facts or law showing that he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons 

for granting relief from the order adopting the findings and recommendations and must therefore 

be denied. 

As noted, plaintiff also requests appointment of pro bono 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), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), 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 (1989). In 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 63 Filed 02/10/20 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

certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, 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, a 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. (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time is unable to determine that plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits of his claims. Although plaintiff indicates he is presently in a psychiatric 

facility and the court notes some difficulty in understanding his pleadings, plaintiff has 

adequately articulated the basis for the claims he is attempting to assert in this action.

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his request for appointment of 

pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00055-DAD-EPG Document 63 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 3