Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-31/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HEDGEPATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OR FOR COURTAPPOINTED EXPERT WITNESS

(Doc. 105.)

I. BACKGROUND

Kelvin X. Singleton (“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 filed this action on

January 18, 2008. (Doc. 1.) 

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which was denied

by the Court on May 21, 2010. (Docs. 66, 68.) On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion

for reconsideration of the Court’s order. (Doc. 105.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests

appointment of an expert witness. 

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.

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

1

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 179 Filed 05/06/11 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

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 “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.” L.R. 230(j).

Plaintiff argues that the Court should appoint counsel for him because his circumstances

have changed. Plaintiff anticipates his participation in a deposition and maintains he does not

have the evidence required to respond. Plaintiff claims that defendants are harassing him,

denying him writing paper and copies, interfering with his outgoing mail, and denying him

access to his medical files. Also, Plaintiff has vision loss which is not improving. 

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court

to reverse its prior decision at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff's case is not exceptional,

and the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, the

motion for reconsideration shall be denied. 

III. MOTION FOR EXPERT WITNESS

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a court-appointed expert witness to testify in his case. 

The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized

by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted), and the in

forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for appointment of an

expert witness in Plaintiff's case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for a court-appointed expert

witness shall be denied.

///

///

///

2

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 179 Filed 05/06/11 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

V. CONCLUSION

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

reconsideration, or in the alternative, for appointment of an expert witness, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 179 Filed 05/06/11 Page 3 of 3