Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv973-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Dkt. No. 243.] 

vs.

A. NUNEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

filed on February 13, 2017, (Dkt. No. 229), overruling Plaintiff’s objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling on his prior motions for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No.

243.) 

A motion for reconsideration may be brought under either Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e) or Rule 60(b). In re Arrowhead Estates Dev. Co., 42 F.3d

1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)). The Court has discretion in granting

or denying a motion for reconsideration. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441

(9th Cir. 1991). A motion for reconsideration should not be granted absent highly

unusual circumstances. 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

1999). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence; (2) clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)

- 1 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 244 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or., 5 F.3d at 1263; see Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] 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.”) “Clear error occurs when ‘the reviewing court on the entire record is left with

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Smith v. Clark

Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Here, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s decision was “contrary to law, clearly

erroneous and the initial decision was manifestly unjust” because the Court failed to

address the merits of Plaintiff’s objections by misconstruing them as moot and did not

conduct a proper de novo review. (Dkt. No. 243 at 1-2.) The Court’s prior order, filed

on February 13, 2017, overruled Plaintiff’s objections to theMagistrate’s order denying

his requests for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 216, 228.) Prior to the filing of the

challenged Court order, on February 6, 2017, the Court denied his motion to appoint

counsel. (Dkt. No. 223.) Because the district court had addressed his motion to

appoint counsel, the Court noted that Plaintiff objections, that his motion to appoint

counsel should be reviewed de novo by a district judge, were moot. 

Plaintiff’s argument, that the Court’s ruling is manifestly unjust, is withoutmerit,

and he has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, the

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order filed on

February 13, 2017, (Dkt. No. 229). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 21, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 244 Filed 03/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2