Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02760/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02760-1/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- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN A. PORTILLO,

CDCR #H-80425,

Civil No. 06-2760 BTM (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S

“MOTION IN OBJECTION TO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S ORDER” AS A MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 19]

vs.

DAVE KHATRI, 

S. WALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 20, 2006, Juan A. Portillo (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated

at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but instead submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

On September 24, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo denied

Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff then filed a “Motion in

Objection to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for

Case 3:06-cv-02760-BTM-CAB Document 20 Filed 11/09/07 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

27

28

-2- 2

Appointment of Counsel” which this Court construes to be a motion to reconsider pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

In this matter, all pre-trial proceedings have been referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann

Bencivengo pursuant to Local Rule 72.3(e), “Assignment of § 1983 Prisoner Civil Cases to

United States Magistrate Judges.” However, Plaintiff is permitted to request that the Court

reconsider any pretrial matter “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is

clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

As noted in the Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s Order dated September 24, 2007, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides district courts with the discretion, under “exceptional

circumstances” to appoint counsel to an indigent party in a civil action. See Sept. 24, 2007 Order

at 1 (citing Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)). In his original Motion,

Plaintiff requested counsel because of his limited knowledge of the law and his limited English

speaking abilities. See Pl.’s Mot. for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 15] at 2-3.

Magistrate Judge Bencivengo found, however, that these circumstances were not

sufficiently “exceptional” to require the appointment of counsel in light of Plaintiff’s ability to

adequately articulate the factual basis of his claims and the likelihood of success on the merits.

See Sept. 24 Order at 2.

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that he does have a likelihood of

success on the merits and he has received assistance from another prisoner to overcome his

language barrier. These factors were considered but found deficient. In addition, Plaintiff has

presented no facts or arguments by which the Court could find that Magistrate Judge

Bencivengo’s order was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

////

////

////

////

Case 3:06-cv-02760-BTM-CAB Document 20 Filed 11/09/07 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

27

28

-3- 3

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s Motion in Objection to United

States Magistrate Judge’s Order” as a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A) and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 19]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02760-BTM-CAB Document 20 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 3