Fernandez v. Duarte
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Frank J. Fernandez moved for reconsideration of a prior order denying his motion to appoint counsel, arguing that the complexity of his case and his incarceration necessitated legal representation. The Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff merely repeated previously rejected arguments and failed to demonstrate clear error, newly discovered evidence, or a change in controlling law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 27] is DENIED.“The motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Ninth Circuit precedent. The order explicitly states that reconsideration is a 'drastic remedy' reserved for clear error, newly discovered evidence, or a change in controlling law. The court found that the plaintiff's motion 'repeats the same arguments' previously rejected and that 'Nothing in plaintiff's Motion presents the kind of changed circumstances that warrant reconsideration.' This is a standard procedural denial where the movant failed to meet the high threshold for relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the high bar for reconsideration motions in the Ninth Circuit by citing *Carroll v. Nakatani*. It explicitly compares the new motion to the prior one, noting the arguments are identical, and concludes that no new circumstances exist. The reasoning directly answers the motion with the correct standard and application to the facts recited in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK J. FERNANDEZ, Case No.: 22-cv-446-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 27]
14 E. DUARTE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying plaintiff’s Motion to 18 Appoint Counsel is before the Court. See Doc. No. 27. This Court may amend or reconsider 19 prior orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. But reconsideration is a drastic remedy, and it is only 20 appropriate when there was clear error in a previous order, newly discovered evidence 21 merits reconsideration, or there has been a change in controlling law. See Carrol v. 22 Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Plaintiff’s Motion repeats the same arguments he made in his first Motion to appoint 24 counsel, that his case is “complex,” he is not sufficiently sophisticated to litigate it without 25 the help of an attorney, his incarceration prevents him from adequately litigating his case, 26 and an appointed lawyer would streamline these proceedings. Compare Doc. No. 27 with 27 Doc. No. 21. The Court has already rejected these arguments. See Doc. No. 22. Nothing in 28 1 || plaintiff's Motion presents the kind of changed circumstances that warrant reconsideration 2 || of the Court’s prior Order. The motion is DENIED. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED 4 ||Dated: October 20, 2023 Ye Kx) 5 G Y Sa 6 Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford , United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28