Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00088/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00088-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles B James,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Alice Warren, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00088-TUC-RM

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Motion to 

Appoint Counsel (Doc. 19) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 21.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny both motions.

In his Motion for Reconsideration Re: Motion to Appoint Counsel, Plaintiff asks 

the Court to reconsider its previous order (Doc. 18) denying Plaintiff’s first request for 

appointment of counsel (Doc. 19). Plaintiff states, in support of his request, that: (1) he is 

unable to afford counsel; (2) his incarceration limits his ability to litigate the complex 

issues in the case; (3) the paralegal at the prison does not provide him with the assistance 

he requires; and (4) appointed counsel would better enable Plaintiff to litigate his case. 

(Id.)

“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a 

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have 

Case 4:19-cv-00088-RM Document 23 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). “Any such 

motion shall point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were 

overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the 

Court’s attention for the first time... and any specific modifications being sought in the 

Court’s Order.” Id.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not point out how the Court erred in 

its previous denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Appointment of Counsel. (Docs. 17, 

18.) Nor does the Motion for Reconsideration bring to light any new facts or legal 

authority that would cause the Court to come to a different conclusion regarding 

appointment of counsel. Rather, Plaintiff repeats facts and arguments from his previous 

Motion to Request Appointment of Counsel that was denied by this Court. (Id.) Because 

the Motion for Reconsideration does not comply with LRCiv 7.2(g) and because Plaintiff 

has not shown a basis for the Court to reconsider its previous order, the Court will deny 

the Motion.

In his Motion to Amend/Correct the Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), Plaintiff 

requests leave to amend the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). While Plaintiff cites to case 

law supporting granting leave to amend the Amended Complaint, he does not state what 

specific amendment he requests. Nor has Plaintiff attached or filed a copy of the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) grants a party leave to amend its pleading once as a matter of 

course within 21 days of serving it. A second amendment will be granted only with the 

opposing party’s consent or leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should 

freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. More than 21 days have passed since 

service of the First Amended Complaint on Defendants. (Docs. 9, 11, 12.) Therefore, 

Plaintiff may not amend the Complaint as a matter of right. Because Plaintiff has not 

provided the Court with a proposed Second Amended Complaint in conjunction with the 

Motion or otherwise demonstrated to the Court what type of amendment he seeks, the 

Court will deny the Motion, with leave to refile.

Case 4:19-cv-00088-RM Document 23 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration re: Motion to 

Appoint Counsel (Doc. 19) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) is denied with leave to refile.

Dated this 24th day of February, 2020. 

Case 4:19-cv-00088-RM Document 23 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 3