Fernandez v. Duarte

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