Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IVAN GOODLOW, JR. Case No.: 26-cv-1008-JES-MMP CDCR #AX-3970, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 9 RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER v. DENYING APPOINTMENT OF 10 COUNSEL MR. VALDEZ, Correctional Officer, 11 Defendant. [ECF No. 13] 12 13 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ivan Goodlow, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 16 reconsideration regarding the Court’s July 24, 2026 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 17 appointment of counsel. ECF No. 13. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES 18 Plaintiff’s motion. 19 On February 9, 2026, pro se Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under the 20 Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1. The Court subsequently granted in forma pauperis status 21 (IFP) and found the Complaint survived screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 22 1915A(b). ECF No. 5. 23 On July 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which the 24 Court denied. ECF Nos. 9, 10. The Court made two primary findings. First, the Court 25 determined Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating “exceptional 26 circumstances” due to case complexity. ECF No. 10 at 2. Second, the Court found it was 27 too early for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 3. 28 Now, Plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 13. 1 2 I. LEGAL STANDARD 3 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 4 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 5 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn 6 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 7 (citation omitted); see also CivLR 7.1(i)(1) (stating the party seeking relief must present 8 “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or 9 were not shown, upon such prior application”). “A motion for reconsideration may not be 10 used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 11 have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880 (citation 12 modified). 13 “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 14 Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). District courts have discretion, however, 15 to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. 16 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In 17 considering whether to appoint counsel in a civil suit, the court should assess: (1) whether 18 the prisoner is likely to succeed on the merits and (2) whether “the prisoner is unable to 19 articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Cano v. Taylor, 20 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970). “Neither of these 21 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision[.]” 22 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff bears the burden of 23 showing exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. 24 II. ANALYSIS 25 Reconsideration of the Court’s July 24, 2026 Order is not appropriate at this stage 26 of the proceeding, under six weeks after the Court denied appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 27 does not allege there is newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in 28 the law. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880. To the contrary, Plaintiff essentially 1 reasserts the same arguments and same factual basis as he did in his previous motion to 2 appoint counsel, which the Court already considered in denying the motion. Accordingly, 3 Plaintiff has not established a proper basis for reconsideration. 4 Even if the Court were to reach the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, 5 Plaintiff does not meet his burden of demonstrating “exceptional circumstances.” Plaintiff 6 argues the case is complex and exceptional due to inconsistencies and video footage 7 alterations. The Court incorporates by reference its summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint 8 allegations in its Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 10 at 2. 9 In the pending motion, Plaintiff also claims Richard J. Donovan Correctional 10 Facility (“RJD”) correctional officers had “video footage re-edit[ed] an[d] altered[,]” 11 resulting in Plaintiff getting a video expert in a separate federal case. ECF No. 13 at 2. The 12 Court does not find this persuasive, particularly in light of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s 13 motions to appoint an expert. Goodlow v. K. Estrada, 24-cv-1490-AJB-SBC, Order 14 Denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Expert, ECF No. 46 (August 12, 2026). 15 Additionally, Plaintiff states there were “witness[es] [] only 5 to 10 feet away when 16 Plaintiff was assaulted[,]” so if the video footage omits these individuals, then the footage 17 had to have been altered. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges different Rule Violation Reports 18 (“RVR”) for the incident show “inconsistencies,” making the case “complex” and “hard to 19 articulate[.]” Id. at 1–2. 20 Plaintiff raised these same grounds, almost verbatim, in his prior motion to appoint 21 counsel. As the Court explained in its July 24, 2026 Order and reiterates here, the Court 22 “sees nothing in this factual circumstance so complex as to constitute an “‘exceptional 23 circumstance.’” ECF No. 10 at 2. In addition, Plaintiff’s filings, including a complaint that 24 passed screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 25 which was subsequently granted, the motion to appoint counsel, and the instant motion for 26 reconsideration, show he is capable of articulating his Eighth Amendment claims and 27 arguments regarding video footage of the incident. Plaintiff is able to seek video footage 28 from Defendants through discovery. Finally, as the Court explained in its July 24, 2026 Order, it “is too early for the 2 Court to determine likelihood of success on the merits.” ECF No. 10 at 3. The same holds 3 || true here: the Court’s current “knowledge of the facts is limited to Plaintiff's allegations in 4 complaint.” /d. 5 CONCLUSION 6 The Court reiterates its previous finding Plaintiff has not met his burden of 7 establishing exceptional circumstances to justify the appointment of counsel under 28 8 ||U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Nor is the Court presented with newly discovered evidence, clear 9 ||error, or an intervening change in the controlling law. The Court therefore DENIES 10 || Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 13. 11 IT ISSO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: September 2, 2026 □□ dala th. ea 13 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28