Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04507/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04507-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael B. Williams
Plaintiff
T. Michael Yuen
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MICHAEL YUEN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04507-EMC 

ORDER DENYING RULE 59 MOTION 

AND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

Docket Nos. 29, 30

On May 13, 2016, the Court dismissed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 from Plaintiff, who currently is in custody at the Coalinga State Hospital. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal and judgment. A 

party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 28 days after entry of 

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e) “„should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 

intervening change in the law.‟” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(citation omitted) (en banc). Plaintiff has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error by the 

Court, or an intervening change in the law. The order of dismissal correctly determined that the 

complaint did not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His motion for reconsideration 

therefore is DENIED. (Docket No. 29.) 

Plaintiff also has filed a notice of appeal and request for appointment of counsel. (Docket 

No. 30.) Having dismissed the action, the Court sees no likelihood of success on the merits of the 

action. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket No. 30.) This 

denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new request for appointment of counsel in the Ninth 

Case 3:14-cv-04507-EMC Document 35 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Circuit. 

The Ninth Circuit has requested this Court to determine whether in forma pauperis status 

should continue for Plaintiff on appeal in this action or whether the appeal is frivolous or not taken 

in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In forma pauperis status may continue for Plaintiff on 

appeal because his appeal appears to have been taken in good faith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04507-EMC Document 35 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2