Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822-5/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 - 07cv01822

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED DARNELL DANIELS

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1822 JM(POR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

vs.

O. ALVARADO, et al.

Defendants.

On or about November 16, 2009 the court received from Plaintiff a declaration requesting

reconsideration of this court’s August 7, 2009 order denying his motion for appointment of counsel.

Reconsideration is generally appropriate where “the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual circumstances

warranting reconsideration." School Dist. N. 1J Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(1993). 

Here, the court denies the motion because Plaintiff fails to identify any newly discovered

evidence, manifest injustice, or change in law. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 47 Filed 11/17/09 Page 1 of 1