Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01462-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

GEORGE HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNKNOWN, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 39)

CLERK DIRECTED TO FAX COPY OF 

ORDER TO LITIGATION COORDINATOR

This action was opened in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California on July 18, 2013, based upon a letter from Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley 

State Prison (“KVSP”), to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson alleging that prison staff 

participated in a "pattern of racketeering activity" which has led to an "extremely dangerous 

and stressful prison environment." On September 10, 2013, the case was transferred to this 

Court. On December 2, 2013, the Court denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 34.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s 

December 2, 2013 order denying counsel. 

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 12/27/13 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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that 

justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent 

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist.

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in 

relevant part, that Plaintiff 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,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the 

time of the prior motion.”

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues this case is exceptional for purposes of appointment of counsel 

because the RICO allegations raise complex issues, similar to those found cognizable yet 

not redressed in his previous litigation against CDCR staff. See Hamilton v. Thomas Moore, 

et al., 1:04-cv-05129 OWW WMW PC. He also alleges prison staff refuse to document and 

accommodate his permanent hand injury which causes him pain when writing. Finally, he 

notes he has no access to an attorney directory.

Plaintiff does not point to anything in Thomas Moore, et al.,

1

an unrelated, non-RICO 

case dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, that 

suggests a basis for reconsideration of the December 2, 2013 order. The record in Thomas 

Moore, et al. does not appear to support exceptional circumstances in this case, which 

arises from purported RICO claims made by Plaintiff in his July 18, 2013 letter to the 

Honorable Thelton E. Henderson. Thomas Moore, et al. was cited in Plaintiff’s November 

22, 2013 motion for counsel, previously considered by the Court, and remains unavailing.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration otherwise simply reargues matters previously 

considered by the Court. It does not identify any error of law or fact in the Court’s previous 

order.

As stated in the December 2, 2013, order, Plaintiff does not show exceptional 

 

1

Judicial notice taken. Fed. R. Civ. P. 201(d); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir.1980).

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 12/27/13 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

circumstances supporting appointment of counsel. The Court can not find at this early 

stage of the proceeding, that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The allegations to 

date do not appear to be novel or unduly complex or likely to involve any extensive 

investigation and discovery. The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation 

of the legal issues and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. The 

Court does not find that at present Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims pro se.

Nevertheless, the Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) Litigation Coordinator shall be 

asked to inquire into Plaintiff’s request for access to an attorney directory. The Clerk of the 

Court shall be directed to serve a copy of this order on the KVSP Litigation Coordinator via 

facsimile at (661) 720-4949. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s December 2, 2013 

order denying counsel (ECF No. 39) is DENIED, and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the KVSP 

Litigation Coordinator via facsimile at (661) 720-4949. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:13-cv-01462-AWI-MJS Document 41 Filed 12/27/13 Page 3 of 3