Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-13/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

JAQUES FEARENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

L.L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Document# 60)

I. BACKGROUND

On October 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 

60.) Plaintiff’s six-page motion is a word-for-word copy of the six-page motion for appointment 

of counsel filed by Plaintiff eight days earlier on October 7, 2013. (Doc. 58.) The only material 

difference is that Plaintiff attached ten pages of exhibits to the October 15th motion, copies of 

letters to Plaintiff from attorneys declining to represent Plaintiff. (Doc. 60 at 7-16.) The court 

denied Plaintiff’s October 7th motion on October 10, 2013. (Doc. 59.) Based on these facts, the 

court construes Plaintiff’s October 15th motion as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 

order denying the October 7th motion.

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 

1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/18/13 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

1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick 

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th 

Cir. 1983) (en banc). 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). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 

230(j) requires a party to show the Anew 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.@ L.R. 230(j).

Plaintiff makes no new arguments in support of his motion. Plaintiff’s evidence that 

several attorneys declined his requests for representation is unpersuasive. Plaintiff has not set 

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

Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on October 15, 2013, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 2