Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00273-14/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 Robert Bishop is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “objection” to the Court’s September 10, 2015, 

order denying his third motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 81.) Although Plaintiff does 

not reference that he seeks reconsideration under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

Court construes his motion to be filed as such. 

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, 

828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies 

relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent injustice and is to be 

ROBERT BISHOP,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S SEPTEMBER 

10, 2015, DENIAL OF THIRD MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 81]

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 85 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

utilized only where extraordinary exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). The 

moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Harvest v. Castro, 

531 F.3d at 749. Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what 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 “why the facts or circumstances were 

not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

On September 10, 2015, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment 

of counsel finding exceptional circumstances were not present to warrant appointment of counsel. 

(ECF No. 68.) 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of counsel based on his claims that his evidence is 

being destroyed, prison staff refuse to assist him in obtaining documents, lack of access to writing 

materials, and the extent of his injuries which will entail medical testimony. Plaintiff unsubstantiated 

and conclusory claim that evidence is being destroyed and staff refuse to assist him in obtaining 

documents does not present “exceptional” circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. Further, 

Plaintiff’s claim that he is denied access to writing materials is negated by the fact that Plaintiff has 

filed several motions in this action subsequent to such claim. In addition, Plaintiff’s claim that this 

case will involve the medical testimony does not equate to a finding of complexity to warrant 

appointment of counsel. Furthermore, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits given Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 78.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s September 10, 2015, order denying his third 

request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 85 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2