Nguyen v. Williams
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Nguyen v. Williams (2025-10-09) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's objections to a final judgment of dismissal and a motion to appoint counsel. The court denied the objections as a motion for reconsideration, denied the motion to appoint counsel as moot, and certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would be frivolous.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Objections (construed as a motion for reconsideration)“DENIES Plaintiff’s Objections, which the Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 17” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 59(e) motions, noting that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy reserved for manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or intervening changes in law. The court found that the plaintiff merely disagreed with the legal determination, which is insufficient to warrant relief. This is a standard and correct application of the law in the Ninth Circuit. |
Denial of Plaintiff's amended motion to appoint counsel“DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s amended motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 15, as the case is closed” | agree with court Since the underlying case was dismissed and closed, there is no pending litigation for which counsel could be appointed. Denying the motion as moot is procedurally correct. |
Certification that an IFP appeal would be frivolous“CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from either this order or the Court’s June 3, 2024, Order would be frivolous and therefore not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court The court is authorized to certify that an appeal is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) if it determines that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Given the dismissal for failure to state a claim and the denial of reconsideration based on the plaintiff's mere disagreement with the legal ruling, the certification is a standard procedural step in prisoner litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture, applies the appropriate standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1(i), and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority to support the denial. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to explain why the plaintiff's objections do not meet the high bar for reconsideration. The denial of the motion to appoint counsel as moot and the certification of frivolousness are standard procedural outcomes in this context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAI NGUYEN, Case No. 23cv1142-JO-KSC CDCR #T-01859, 11 ORDER DENYING AMENDED Plaintiff, 12 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL vs. AND DENYING MOTION FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION 14 K. WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Dai Nguyen is a state prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison in 20 Calipatria, California. Proceeding pro se, he filed this lawsuit alleging that correctional 21 counselors violated his constitutional rights when they denied his requests to transfer 22 prisons to be closer to his attorneys and court proceedings. See Dkt. 9 (“First Amended 23 Complaint”). On June 3, 2024, the Court entered a final judgment of dismissal for failure 24 to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). Dkt. 14. 25 After this case was dismissed and closed, Plaintiff filed “Objections” to this ruling, Dkt. 26 17, and a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 15. 27 Because Plaintiff’s Objections challenge the Court’s final judgment in this case, the 28 Court will construe this filing as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure Rule 59(e) and S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). “In general, there are four 2 basic grounds upon which a [reconsideration] motion may be granted: (1) if such motion 3 is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 4 such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 5 (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 6 justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 7 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011); See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i). Because 8 reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, such motions “should not be granted, absent 9 highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 10 Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a reconsideration motion “may not be 11 used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 12 have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. (quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of 13 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 14 Here, the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims and concluded that their 15 deficiencies could not be cured by additional allegations. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff has identified 16 no change in controlling law, no newly discovered facts, and no manifest error that would 17 justify modifying the Court’s previous conclusion. See Allstate, 634 F.3d at 1111. He 18 appears to merely disagree with the Court’s legal determination; such disagreements do 19 not amount to manifest injustice and are insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 59(e). 20 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 Accordingly, the Court: 22 1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Objections, which the Court liberally construes as a motion 23 for reconsideration, Dkt. 17; 24 2) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s amended motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 15, 25 as the case is closed, and; 26 3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from either this order or the Court’s June 3, 2024, 27 Order would be frivolous and therefore not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(a)(3). I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||DATE: June 12, 2024 3 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 4 United States District Judge 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