Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01692/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01692-12/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

MACK A. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN PETTIGREW, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01692 JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mack A. West’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration by the District Court of 

the Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (Doc. #111).1 Defendants did not 

file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 2, 2013, 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(e). No hearing was 

scheduled.

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 116 Filed 01/13/14 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

Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. #105). 

On December 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s 

request because the required exceptional circumstances were not

present (Doc. #107). 

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

The standard for a Motion for Reconsideration is governed by 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 303. The district court “may 

reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that 

the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law.” 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L. R. 303(f). The 

standard of review under § 636(b)(1)(A) is highly deferential; 

see United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968-69 (9th 

Cir. 2001), and does not permit the reviewing court to substitute 

its own judgment for that of the magistrate judge’s. Grimes v. 

City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 

1991).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s 

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. A

court may appoint counsel in a civil case under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) 

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional 

circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of 

success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 116 Filed 01/13/14 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

Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s order is 

clearly erroneous because it fails to take into consideration his 

physical and mental impairments. In addition, he mentions that 

he has been appointed counsel in another case in the Eastern 

District of California, West v. Grounds, 2:09-cv-03147 KJM-AC. 

However, that case concerns a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the magistrate judge made 

the finding that the case involved complex issues, including 

developing the facts of his equitable tolling claim. West v. 

Grounds, 2:09-cv-03147 KJM-AC (Doc. #124). The case at hand is a 

civil rights lawsuit for violation of the Eighth Amendment and 

Plaintiff has not identified any particular issue of substantial 

complexity. Further, Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient 

writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law.”

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s 

Ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: January 10, 2014

 

Case 2:11-cv-01692-JAM-CKD Document 116 Filed 01/13/14 Page 3 of 3