Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01394/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01394-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL DWAYNE SMITH, No. CIV S-08-1394-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

IGI LIASON UNIT 

INVESTIGATOR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings

in this case. Pending before the court is a motion for reconsideration of this court’s order filed

July 28, 2008, denying plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. 

Rule 60(b) allows the court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for

limited reasons, including: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,

released or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In this

case, plaintiff claims there exists exceptional circumstances in this case which require the

appointment of counsel. As was previously explained to plaintiff, the court may request the

Case 2:08-cv-01394-CMK Document 16 Filed 08/22/08 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

2

voluntary assistance of counsel only under exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional circumstances depends in

particular on the likelihood of success of the merits and plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims

pro se. See id. (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, plaintiff has not demonstrated a sufficient reason justifying relief. The

denial of plaintiff’s request for counsel was within the court’s discretion, and plaintiff has not

demonstrated that decision was erroneous. Plaintiff may, at a later stage in these proceedings,

renew his request for counsel. 

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration of the order denying him appointment of counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED. 

DATED: August 22, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01394-CMK Document 16 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 2