Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BARRIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 65)

On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

December 19, 2023 Order denying appointment of Counsel. (Doc. No. 65, “Motion”). Plaintiff 

asks the Court to reconsider its Order because he is suicidal, mentally unstable, suffers 

hallucinations, and was recently renewed for involuntary “psych meds.” (Id. at 1). Because 

Plaintiff’s Motion was filed within 28 days of the order being challenged, the Court construes it 

as made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 

judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly 

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

law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation 

omitted) (emphasis in original). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 76 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 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

2

considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s 

burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal 

quotations omitted). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing 

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior order. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of 

Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on 

other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not present any newly discovered evidence, 

demonstrate clear error, or set forth any change in the controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff reiterates 

the fact that he suffers from mental health impairments that make it difficult for him to represent 

himself. (Doc. No. 65 at 1). Plaintiff previously advanced this as a justification in his original 

motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 55 at 1). As the undersigned noted in its prior Order 

denying Appoint of Counsel, Plaintiff fails to establish “exceptional circumstances” necessary to 

warrant appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 58 at 6). While the Court is sympathetic to the 

challenges Plaintiff faces, he has capably filed Motions and other pleadings in this case, and his 

claims have survived screening. Indeed, Plaintiff recently requested permission and was granted 

leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 67, 68, 74). Thus, Plaintiff has 

demonstrated an ability to litigate this case and has not established a sufficient reason under Rule 

59 to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s December 19, 2023 Order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s construed motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) (Doc. No. 65) is 

DENIED.

Dated: February 15, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 76 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 2