Williams v. Smith

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BARTON WILLIAMS, Case No. 20-cv-08560-VKD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 LAURIE SMITH, Re: Dkt. No. 35 Defendant. 11

12 13 Mr. Barton Williams, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in pro se 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendant Sheriff Laurie Smith of Santa Clara County. Dkt. 15 No. 1. On March 24, 2022, the Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in 16 defendant’s favor. Judgment was entered the same day. Dkt. Nos. 33, 34. On April 20, 2022, Mr. 17 Williams filed a “motion to appeal court’s ruling on a civil suit and request for appointment of 18 counsel,” which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 59(e). Dkt. No. 35. 20 A party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) if he seeks 21 substantive change in the judgment or an order vacating the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); 22 White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 450-451 (1982). One 23 purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to allow a court to reconsider and correct a mistake promptly 24 following entry of judgment. Id. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) may be granted 25 to account for an intervening change in controlling law, to account for new evidence not available 26 before judgment was entered, or to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. McDowell v. 27 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 1 limits, or how to obtain the expert medical testimony or witnesses that would have provided the 2 Court with an accurate account of his medical issues, why medical care was so badly needed, and 3 how the lack of care by the Santa Clara County Jail medical staff kept him in constant pain. Dkt. 4 No. 35 at 3. Mr. Williams says that he twice requested appointment of counsel but those requests 5 were denied. Id. at 3-4. Mr. Williams asserts that the lawsuit was too complex for him to “bring 6 to [fruition] and trial due to the fact he was not allowed or afforded the right to counsel, nor 7 proper, regular access to the prison’s law library.” Id. at 4. Mr. Williams then repeats some of the 8 same arguments he raised in his complaint and opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 9 Id. at 5. 10 None of these assertions support reconsideration here. Mr. Williams does not identify any 11 change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error. The Court understands Mr. 12 Williams to say that because the Court did not appoint counsel to represent him, permitting the 13 judgment to stand will result in manifest injustice. However, the Court carefully considered Mr. 14 Williams’s prior request for appointment of counsel and concluded that this case did not present 15 the exceptional circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 13 at 5. 16 Mr. Williams offers the same reasons again in support of his motion for reconsideration, but the 17 Court again finds these reasons insufficient. The case presented no novel legal questions, and the 18 material facts were not disputed. See Dkt. No. 33 at 8-14. 19 For these reasons, Mr. Williams’s Rule 59(e) motion is denied, as is his renewed request 20 for appointment of counsel. Mr. Williams may proceed with an appeal of this matter to the Ninth 21 Circuit Court of Appeals by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 22 Procedure 3(a)(1). See also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The Court’s denial of Mr. Williams’s 23 renewed motion for appointment of counsel is without prejudice to his filing a request for 24 appointment of counsel before the Ninth Circuit. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: April 21, 2022 3 . 28 □ 4 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28