Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00078-H-AJB

Document 12

Filed 03/21/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE GUADARRAMA, Plaintiff, vs. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 08-CV-0078 H (AJB) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 10.]

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On January 14, 2008, plaintiff Jorge Guadarrama, a state prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action. (Doc. No. 3.) On February 4, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 4.) On February 20, 2008, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 5.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within 45 days of the order of dismissal. On February 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an objection to the Court's order denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court granted the requested extension. (Doc. No. 7.) On March 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of his request for appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 10.) ///
-108cv78

Case 3:08-cv-00078-H-AJB

Document 12

Filed 03/21/2008

Page 2 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

Reconsideration "is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AC & S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Whether to grant or deny reconsideration is within the discretion of the district court. United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970). The Court concludes that Plaintiff's motion fails to establish grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion. The Court notes, however, that its denial of Plaintiff's request for appointed counsel was without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to file a new motion to appoint counsel if new circumstances render Plaintiff no longer able to adequately "articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 21, 2008 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

08cv78