Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00754-2/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

LAVELLE TYRONE PLAYER, 1:06-cv-0754 AWI WMW PC 

vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (DOC 11)

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion

for the appointment of counsel. When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local 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.” The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a).

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t. of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to

Case 1:06-cv-00754-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 03/26/08 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

2

“request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of counsel.” 

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. § 296, 310 (1989). The court may ask counsel to

represent an indigent litigant under section 1915 only in “exceptional circmustances,” the

determination of which requires an evaulation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits

and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

legal issues invovled. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir. 1997) withdrawn in part

th

on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9 Cir. 1998)(en banc); Wilborn v. th

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. 1986). th

Plaintiff’s primary basis for requesting counsel is that he can not afford to retain private

counsel, and he is convinced of his chance of success. Applying the factors the court can

consider, the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error in denying the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff has offered no persuasive argument to meet the requirement that there is a likelihood of

success. Plaintiff simply offers the conclusion that “this has great potential for success.” 

Plaintiff has also not shown that the legal issues in this case are so complex that Plaintiff’s ability

to articulate his claims so low that counsel is needed. Because most pro se litigants would be

assisted by counsel, the court can only appoint counsel if the Plaintiff shows that “because of the

complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

There is no such showing in this case. 

Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that statutory grounds exist that entitle Plaintiff to

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for counsel. The

Magistrate Judge’s order was not clear error. Further, Plaintiff has cited no new facts, new law,

mistake, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances that would entitle Plaintiff to

reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b); Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 72(a); Local Rule 72-303; Local Rule

78-230(k). As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration. 

Case 1:06-cv-00754-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 03/26/08 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

the Magistrate Judge’s order denying the appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00754-AWI-WMW Document 12 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 3