Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

T. J. DICKERSON, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 96-CV-5576 AWI DLB P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Document #138]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and has filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pretrial matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

The Magistrate Judge has denied Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. On

November 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order

denying his request for counsel. Petitioner claims counsel should be appointed because this case

is exceptional and complex. 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 th

(D.C.Cir. 1987). 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, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate th

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 157 Filed 01/29/08 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

Judge’s ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v.

NME Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9 Cir. 1991). A motion for reconsideration is not the th

proper avenue for raising arguments and legal theories that could have been, but were not, raised

before the Magistrate Judge issued the order from which reconsideration is sought. In re Agric.

Research & Tech. Group, Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9 Cir.1990). th

To succeed in his motion, Plaintiff must show that the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his

request for counsel was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. There is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Title 28

U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a

litigant who is proceeding is forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the

courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist.

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant

under Section 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir.1997) withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en th

banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9 Cir.1998) (en banc); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9

th th

Cir.1986). 

Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that statutory grounds exist that entitle Plaintiff to

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for counsel. The

Magistrate Judge’s order was not clear error. Plaintiff appears able to present his claims

adequately, and the issues at this stage of the case are issues of fact. At issue is whether

Defendant made certain statements that constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety

and whether Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff. This disputed issue of fact is ready to be tried

by a jury, and any further proceedings in this action do not involve issues of law that are novel or

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 157 Filed 01/29/08 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

complex. While the court recognizes that there has been significant delay in this action, the

court’s own delay in processing this action is not a ground to appoint counsel now that this

matter is scheduled for trial. A review of the docket reveals that Plaintiff’s filings are

comprehensive and focused. Plaintiff has filed numerous motions throughout this action, and

these motions are articulate and organized. Plaintiff is correct that he would be served by the

assistance of counsel, and the court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s desire for counsel. 

However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “any pro se litigant certainly would be better

served with the assistance of counsel,” and as such the Plaintiff must “show that because of the

complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Plaintiff has made no such showing. As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of the

Magistrate Judge’s order.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 157 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 3