Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05633/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05633-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. WOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05633-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

AND DENYING HIS MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 4, 2014 Order 

denying appointment of counsel. Dkt. 38.

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) a void 

judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are 

extraordinary. Mere dissatisfaction with the Court’s order, or belief that the Court is wrong in its 

decision, are not grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other provision of Rule 60(b). 

“‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling 

law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest 

injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Plaintiff presents no grounds that warrant reconsideration. As explained in the Court’s 

Order denying appointment of counsel, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case 

unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 

1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in section 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other 

grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to 

represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the 

Case 4:13-cv-05633-YGR Document 49 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be 

viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under section 1915. See id. 

At present, the Court is unable to assess whether exceptional circumstances exist which would 

warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are at an 

early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. 38. The Court will 

consider appointment of counsel later in the proceedings, after Defendants have filed their 

dispositive motion and the Court has a better understanding of the procedural and substantive 

matters at issue. Therefore, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel 

after Defendants’ dispositive motion has been filed. If the Court decides that appointment of 

counsel is warranted at that time, it will seek volunteer counsel to agree to represent Plaintiff pro 

bono.

In addition, Plaintiff has informed the Court that his legal materials and personal property 

have been “transpacked pending his transport” as he is being transferred to a new prison. Dkt. 38 

at 1. Therefore, he is also requesting a stay in proceedings until after the transfer. Id. The Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s request. At this time, Plaintiff has no pending deadlines as Defendants’ 

dispositive motion has not yet been filed. If Plaintiff’s transfer has not taken place by the time he 

faces any future deadlines, then he may file a request for an extension of time to meet such 

deadlines.

This Order terminates Docket No. 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

April 27, 2015

Case 4:13-cv-05633-YGR Document 49 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 2