Stewart v. Schreiner

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 ANTHONY STEWART, Case No. 2:23-cv-00277-MMD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v.

9 JONAH SCHREINER, et al., [Docket No. 55] 10 Defendant(s). 11 On October 8, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 12 Docket No. 29. Plaintiff has now filed another motion for appointment of counsel, Docket No. 55, 13 which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. 14 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips 15 Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal 16 quotations omitted). The Local Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the 17 Court should reconsider an interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate 18 if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or 19 response was filed, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 20 or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). A motion for 21 reconsideration may not repeat arguments already presented. Local Rule 59-1(b). 22 The instant motion is a generic form that does not meet the governing standard for 23 reconsideration. Docket No. 55 at 2. The Court notes that the certificate of service indicates 24 further in handwriting that Plaintiff is unable to “go to the prison library as [he] need[s] to.” See 25 id. at 3. Plaintiff’s prior motion already argued that appointment of counsel was warranted because 26 Plaintiff is “often without access to the phone or law library adequately enough” to litigate this 27 case. Docket No. 26 at 3. That contention has already been found to be insufficient for 28 appointment of counsel. Docket No. 29 at 1 (“[c]ircumstances common to most prisoners, such lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel” (quoting Boyd v. Henry, No. 2:23-cv-01022-CDS-MDC, 2024 WL 4046456, at *5 (D. Nev. May 9, 2024)). 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April 30, 2025 A. Nancy J»Koppe, 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28