Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01262/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01262-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO RICHARD MADRID,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND (2) 

GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, initially filed 

this action on June 4, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On November 16, 2015, this Court denied 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismissed his First Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. (ECF No. 14.) 

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (Id.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the denial of the 

motion to appoint counsel, along with a motion for extension of time to file an amended 

complaint. (ECF Nos. 16, 18.)

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG Document 19 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 3
2

3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG

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

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s November 16, 2015 Order denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

A. Standard of Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for 

reconsideration. However, a motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously 

decided may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) or 

Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989); In re 

Arrowhead Estates Development Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Rule 

60, a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding” may be filed within a 

“reasonable time,” but usually must be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the 

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). 

Reconsideration under Rule 60 may be granted in the case of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) fraud; or if (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) other reason that justifies 

relief. Fed.R.Civ. P. 60(b).

B. Plaintiff’s motion

In Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration he claims that he is “indigent and cannot 

afford to hire counsel.” (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 16, at 1.) In addition, he argues that the 

“issues are extremely complex” and he has “limited knowledge and understanding” of the 

law. (Id.)

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dept. of 

Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), 

district courts have some limited discretion to “request” that an attorney represent an 

indigent civil litigant. Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 

2004). This discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; see 

also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances requires “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

Case 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG Document 19 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 3
3

3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG

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

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn 

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, the Court finds no basis to appoint counsel in this matter at this stage of the 

proceedings. A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and First Amended Complaint 

demonstrate that Plaintiff is capable of articulating the factual basis for his claims. 

However, the likelihood of success on the merits is not at all yet clear. Id. Therefore, 

neither the interests of justice nor any exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of 

counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 

F.2d at 1017.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court:

1. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 16); and 

2. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Second 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty (60) days leave from 

the date of this Order in which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the 

deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s previous Orders. Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his original pleading. See S.D.

CAL. CIVLR. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended 

Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 

1987)

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of a court approved civil 

rights complaint form.

Dated: February 2, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01262-GPC-WVG Document 19 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 3