Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00869-5/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

OMAR JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. NUCKLES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 31)

Plaintiff Omar Jefferson is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 3, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second request for the appointment of 

counsel, without prejudice. (ECF No. 26.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to 

reconsider that order, filed November 9, 2016. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff contends that he requires 

special accommodations due to his mental health care level, and that the law librarian will not 

provide him legal advice, including explaining the meaning of legal documents, due to CDC 

policy. For these reasons, Plaintiff contends he is not mentally capable to access the courts and 

comply with court orders. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a 

final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud...of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) 

the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of 

the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

///

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 11/14/16 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

2

Here, Plaintiff’s motion does not show grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s prior 

order. The Court has previously considered that Plaintiff contends he is disabled, that he is a 

layman at the law, and that he has limited legal assistance from the law librarian. Nevertheless, it 

has found that Plaintiff has adequately articulated his claims, complied with all Court orders, 

makes comprehensible filings, and has at least some assistance from other individuals. The Court 

is not persuaded that this is the type of case that presents the “exceptional circumstances” which 

might require the appointment of counsel. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 

1997). Plaintiff has not shown that the Court committed any error in denying Plaintiff’s requests 

for counsel earlier in this case. Further, in arriving at its original decision, this Court is mindful 

that the court has limited access to counsel willing to accept these cases, it is not a right to have 

an appointment and the “exceptional circumstances” standard previously discussed.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 

of the order denying his second motion for the appointment of counsel, filed November 9, 2016 

(ECF No. 31), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB Document 32 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2