Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01239-14/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 

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 

ESTER BURNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. MIRANDA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01239-MCE-CKD-P 

ORDER 

In bringing the present Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff Ester Burnett 

(“Plaintiff”) asks this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s August 4, 2015 Order 

denying Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. In that Order, the Magistrate 

Judge noted that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 

prisoners, and while the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel in 

exceptional circumstances, the Magistrate Judge found no such circumstances to be 

present in this matter. Despite that ruling, Plaintiff wants the Court to send this action to 

a panel of attorneys willing to accept prisoner civil rights cases on a pro bono basis. 

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the assigned judge shall apply 

the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule 

303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-01239-MCE-CKD Document 104 Filed 01/21/16 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 

§ 636(b)(1)(A).1

 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge’s 

decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 

508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the 

Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the 

Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence 

differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 

(9th Cir. 1997). 

After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge’s 

decision denying Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel was clearly erroneous. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly noted that the Court cannot require counsel to represent 

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Nor does the Court find the Magistrate Judge’s 

decision finding this matter to lack the exceptional circumstances necessary to even 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel to be clearly erroneous. Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (ECF No. 102) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 20, 2016 

 1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district court judge to “modify or set aside any 

portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Similarly, under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the 

magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Case 2:13-cv-01239-MCE-CKD Document 104 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 2