(PC) Campbell v. Smith ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] Senarble Campbell, No. 2:21-cev-01172-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Rainelle Smith, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Senarble Campbell previously requested appointment of counsel, Mot., ECF No. 18 | 31, which this court denied, finding his ongoing recovery from COVID-19 not “exceptional,” 19 | Prior Order at 3, ECF No. 62; see also Franklin vy. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984) 20 | (explaining attorneys are appointed only in exceptional circumstances). Plaintiff asks the court to 21 | reconsider its decision. Request for Reconsideration, ECF No. 67. He claims an ongoing 22 | discovery dispute with defendants, in which defendants argue his discovery requests were 23 | untimely, shows he requires counsel in this case. /d. at 2. 24 While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of 25 | Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason 26 | that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff's new circumstances do not justify 27 | relief, see E.D. Cal. R. 230G)(3), (4). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, 28 | absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 1 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 2 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Although the court 3 acknowledges the ongoing discovery dispute between plaintiff and defendants, the court also 4 notes plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery, which is pending. See Mot., ECF No. 65. 5 The pendency of a discovery dispute alone does not comprise exceptional circumstances 6 warranting appointment of counsel. The court thus denies plaintiff’s request for 7 reconsideration. 8 This order resolves ECF No. 67. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: May 8, 2023.