Garrison v. NDOC Director

Opinion

1 2 3

6 ARTHUR LEE GARRISON, Case No.: 3:17-cv-00391-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, Order

8 v. Re: ECF No. 268

CORRECTIONS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 Before the court is Plaintiff’s “Reconsideration for Appointment of Counsel” (ECF No. 13 268). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court’s order of April 20, 2021 (ECF No. 262), which 14 denied Plaintiff’s twelfth motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s rationale for such is that 15 “The AG’s office or Mr. I. Carr falsely told the Judge in U.S. District Court, that Dr. N. Wood’s 16 report on his exam of Plaintiff, was to been given to Plaintiff on time, when in fact it was not til 17 7-24-18 one day after the 7-23-18 tele-conf.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also states he “has been in 18 imminent danger of serious injury” and “he lacks severily (sic) literacy skills, which is surely been 19 a inadequacy on the schools system, education departments, prisons. For his real intellectual scores 20 are probley (sic) in the 6th grade levels.” (Id. at 5.) 21 As the court has also previously explained to Mr. Garrison, while any pro se inmate such 22 as Mr. Garrison would likely benefit from services of counsel, that is not the standard this court 23 1 must employ in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Wood v. Housewright, 2 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-1336 (9th Cir. 1990). 3 Despite Plaintiff’s contentions of numerous medial issues, he has been able to litigate 4 twelve (12) prior motions for appointment of counsel, along with numerous objections. He has

5 also been able to prosecute another action before this court [3:18-cv-00389-MMD-WGC]. 6 In the exercise of the court's discretion, it DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 7 for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 268). 9 Dated: June 23, 2021. 10 _________________________________ William G. Cobb 11 United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23