Rogers v. Washington Department of Corrections

Opinion

1 2 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 DARYL ROGERS, Case No. 3:21-cv-05011-BJR-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF 10 Defendants. 11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of 12 order denying motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 73). The Court DENIES this motion. 13 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his request for Court- 14 appointed counsel. Dkt. 72. On December 15, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second 15 motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 66) because Plaintiff did not show this case involves 16 extraordinary circumstances, complex facts or law, or an inability to articulate the factual 17 basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court. Dkt. 72. In his motion for 18 reconsideration, plaintiff reiterates he needs Court-appointed counsel because he is 19 indigent, is visually impaired and needs assistance in taking depositions and obtaining 20 discovery. Dkt. 73. Plaintiff contends his claims of deliberate indifference render this 21 case complex, and asserts he has shown he is likely to succeed on the merits because 22 his complaint has survived screening and has stated a cognizable claim for relief. Id. 23 24 1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and 2 will be denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal 3 authority which could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. 4 Plaintiff has not met the standard outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(h). Plaintiff fails to show

5 a manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling. Plaintiff also fails to provide new facts or legal 6 authority which could not have been presented earlier or show this case presents an 7 “exceptional circumstance” requiring the appointment of counsel. See Rand v. Roland, 8 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 9 1998); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). As the Court 10 previously found, plaintiff has shown he has sufficient ability to articulate his claims, and 11 this case does not present extraordinary complexity that sets it apart from any other 12 case brought by an incarcerated plaintiff. 13 As the motion for reconsideration does not meet the standard outlined in Local 14 Civil Rule 7(h) or show appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, plaintiff’s

15 motion (Dkt. 73) is DENIED. 16 17 Dated this 6th day of February, 2023. 18 19 A 20 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24