Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00462-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Background

Plaintiff Deandre Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

March 29, 2013, and requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) On April 1, 2013, the 

Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. (ECF No. 6.) On 

February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.)

II. Discussion

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A party 

DEANDRE SHEPARD

 Plaintiff,

v.

NATALIE CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00462-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 10)

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 

recapitulation ...” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United 

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D.Cal.2001). To succeed, a party must 

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. 

See Kern–Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), affirmed in 

part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987). Additionally, pursuant to this 

Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “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.” Local Rule 230(j).

By the instant request for reconsideration, Plaintiff primarily reiterates the statements in his 

original motion for appointment of counsel. However, Plaintiff now adds that he has a limited formal 

education, which obscures his ability to understand the law, and he does not have the resources to find 

a pro bono lawyer. (ECF No. 10, pp. 2-3.) These additional facts do not provide a strongly 

convincing basis to reverse the Court’s prior order denying appointment of counsel. 

As Plaintiff previously was informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot 

require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 

However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s lack of education and lack of resources do not demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. This court is faced with cases brought by prisoners in similar circumstances almost 

daily. Based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot 

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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

adequately articulate his claims. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, before screening, the 

court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying 

appointment of counsel, filed on February 3, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 11 Filed 02/10/14 Page 3 of 3