Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01298/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01298-3/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

EUGENE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01298-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

RENEWED MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 21)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REGARDING PROPERTY

(ECF No. 22)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Eugene Jones (“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’s complaint has not yet 

been screened.

On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 6.) On 

November 13, 2024, the Court issued an order denying the motion, without prejudice, finding that 

Plaintiff had not met the required exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 9.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two requests for the Court to reconsider its order denying 

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 13, 16.) Both motions were denied because 

they raised the same arguments made in Plaintiff’s original motion to appoint counsel and did not 

provide a basis to reverse the Court’s prior order. (ECF No. 20.) 

Case 1:24-cv-01298-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 5
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

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third request for the Court to reconsider its order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion for counsel. (ECF No. 21.) On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff also filed 

a motion regarding his property. (ECF No. 22.) Both motions are denied, for the reasons 

explained below.

II. Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel

As in his prior motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him 

counsel due to various mental and physical medical issues. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff argues that 

he has important papers to submit to the Court to support his claims in this action, but he has been 

unable to get his belongings following his transfer from Wasco State Prison to Lancaster State 

Prison. (Id.)

As Plaintiff was previously informed, “[a] motion for reconsideration should not be 

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 

law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration 

must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that 

which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. United States v. Westlands 

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal.2001). 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), aff’d in part 

and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Additionally, pursuant to this 

Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or 

different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon 

such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

Again, Plaintiff raises the same arguments, and has failed to present any new or different 

facts or circumstances that did not exist or were not shown in his previous motions. Plaintiff is 

advised that the Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his physical and mental health 

concerns as true, and supporting documents or evidence are not necessary to support his request 

Case 1:24-cv-01298-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 5
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

for counsel. Even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s 

situation meets the “exceptional circumstances” appropriate to appoint counsel in this action.

Plaintiff’s renewed motion for reconsideration is therefore denied for the same reasons 

articulated in the Court’s prior order. (ECF No. 20.)

Plaintiff has now filed three separate requests for reconsideration of the Court’s order 

denying his motion to appoint counsel. None of these motions includes new or different 

information that would make reconsideration appropriate. Such repetitive filings waste the 

Court’s limited resources and delays the resolution of this action. Plaintiff is warned that filing 

additional baseless motions, needlessly multiplying the proceedings, wasting judicial 

resources, or otherwise submitting filings in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment, 

may subject him to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. “Rule 11 is 

intended to deter baseless filings in district court and imposes a duty of ‘reasonable inquiry’ so 

that anything filed with the court is ‘well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not interposed for 

any improper purpose.’” Islamic Shura Council of So. Cal. v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 

2014) (per curiam) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)).

III. Motion Regarding Property

In his motion regarding property, Plaintiff states that since his transfer from Wasco State 

Prison to Lancaster State Prison over a month ago, he has not received his property, even though 

two other individuals who were transferred without property at the same time now have their 

belongings. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff has submitted numerous request slips to the property officer 

at Lancaster and Wasco without any relief. In his property are papers he needs to send to the 

Court to support his claims in this action. Plaintiff submitted a grievance that was reassigned to 

Wasco, and gives CDCR two months to respond. Plaintiff believes his property has been 

disposed of by Wasco officials and requests the Court’s assistance. (Id.)

Plaintiff is reminded that while exhibits are permissible if incorporated by reference into 

the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice 

pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Court strongly suggests to Plaintiff that they should not be 

submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse the record and burden the Court, or (2) they are 

Case 1:24-cv-01298-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/06/25 Page 3 of 5
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

4

intended as future evidence. If this action reaches a juncture at which the submission of evidence 

is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the opportunity 

at that time to submit his evidence.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion regarding his property is denied, to the extent he argues that 

access to his property is necessary so he can submit paperwork to support his claims in this 

action. At the pleading stage, the Court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and 

documents or other evidence are not necessary to support Plaintiff’s allegations.

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 

in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 

U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

To the extent Plaintiff believes his rights are being violated, he has other avenues of relief 

available to him, including filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. E.g., People 

v. Brewer, 235 Cal. App. 4th 122, 138, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104, 114 (2015) (a California trial court 

may grant habeas corpus petitioners prospective relief to redress recurring, persistent deprivations 

of prisoners’ rights at correctional facilities). The issue is not that Plaintiff’s allegations are not 

serious or that he is not entitled to relief if sought in the proper forum. The issue is that this 

action cannot be used by Plaintiff obtain the relief he seeks. The seriousness of Plaintiff’s 

allegations concerning deprivation of his property do not overcome what is a jurisdictional bar. 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103–04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury 

in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy 

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its 

existence.”)

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s 

motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 21), is DENIED;

Case 1:24-cv-01298-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/06/25 Page 4 of 5
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

5

2. Plaintiff’s motion regarding property, (ECF No. 22), is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01298-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/06/25 Page 5 of 5