Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00088-13/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

DYLAN L. DUNN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

J. CASTRO, ET AL., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

1: 06 - CV - 0088 AWI WMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Documents #45 & #51)

On April 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for the District Court Judge to reconsider the

Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. On May 20,

2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). The court reviews a motion to reconsider a Magistrate 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). 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 06/02/08 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

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 th

part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9 Cir.1998) (en banc); Wilborn v. th

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

 Plaintiff contends he needs counsel because his case was not dismissed at the pleading

stage, he needs assistance with discovery, he needs assistance at trial, and Plaintiff’s access to the

law library is minimal. The court has reviewed the file in this action. Plaintiff appears able to

present his claims adequately, and the issues at this stage of the case are issues of fact. Plaintiff

has filed motions and pleadings throughout this action. Although Plaintiff’s filings do not

always achieve the quality of papers that are usually prepared by lawyers, Plaintiff’s filings have

been articulate and organized. The court recognizes the difficulties of litigating a case when a

Plaintiff was limited access to the law library. However, the court’s April 7, 2008 scheduling

order gave numerous deadlines in this action, and this order should be sufficient to allow Plaintiff

law library access based on a court order.

Plaintiff is correct that he would be served by the assistance of counsel because he is pro

se and incarcerated. The Ninth Circuit has recognized, “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 not made such showing.

Finally, the court notes that its ability to appoint counsel is constrained by the attorneys in

the community who are willing to represent incarcerated pro se plaintiffs upon a request by the

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 06/02/08 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

court. Unfortunately, there are very few attorneys that are willing to take such appointments. 

As such, the court’s scarce resources mandate that counsel only be appointed in a limited number

of the hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases pending before the court. This case is not truly

exceptional. Thus, both the motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of

counsel and the motion for appointment of counsel must be denied.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s denial of

counsel is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00088-AWI-DLB Document 52 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 3