James v. Smith ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STEPHON ERIC JAMES CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 22-2877 RANDY SMITH, ET AL. SECTION: “D”(5) ORDER Before the Court is a Reconsider Motion [sic] for Appointment of Counsel or Assistance (rec. doc. 27) filed by Plaintiff Stephon Eric James. Having reviewed the pI.l eadinBga acnkdg trhoeu cnadse law, the Court rules as follows. Plaintiff is an inmate at the St. Tammany Parish Jail (“the Jail”). He alleges that he “utilizes a prosthetic eye which requires sanitary cleaning and maintenance to protect the exposed socket from infection.” (Rec. doc. 4-1 at p. 12). Plaintiff alleges thatI dh.e received delayed medical treatment and/or cleanings for his prosthetic eye at the Jail. ( at pp. 12- 13). Plaintiff maintains that as a result of the delayed treatmeIndt., he suffered an infection in his eye socket that resulted in pain and emotional distress. ( ). On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff sued various officials and medical personnel at the Jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 IrIe.g ardiLnagw th aen adll eAgneadllyys iinsadequate medical care that he received for his prosthetic eye. The Federal Rules oBf asCsi vvi. l U.PSr. oDceepd'tu roef Adgori c.not expressly allow motions for reconsideration of an order. , 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). The Fifth Circuit treats a motion for reconsideration challenging a prior order as either a motion “to alter or amend” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59L(aev)e sopre rae mv.o Ntiioang aforar Mach. & Tool Works, Inc. abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990), , 37 F.3d 1069, 1076 (5th Cir. 1994). The difference in treatment is based onId t.iming. If the motion is filed within 28 days of the order, then it falls under Rule 59(e). However, if tIhde. motion is filed more than 28 days after the judgment, it is governed by Rule 60(b). In the present case, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (rec. doc. 27) was filed on March 3, 2023, which is more than 28 days after the December 19, 2022 order (rec. doc. 20) denying Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. As a result, Plaintiffs' mViolltairornu bfoiar vr. eEcnocnosmidpearsast iIonnd eims .a Cnoa.lyzed under the more stringent Rule 60(b) standard. , No. CIV. A. 10-734, 2011 WL 2413492, at *1 (E.D. La. June 13, 2011). Rule 60(b) provides that a court may reconsider an order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or it is based on a prior judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or it is no longer equitable for the judgment to have prospective application; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6H0e(sbli)n.g A v .d CisStXri cTtr caonusprt., hIansc .considerable discretion to grant or deny relief under Rule 60(b). , 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir.2005). A district court abuses its discretion only if it bases its Idde.cVisiilolanr rounb aian erroneous view of the law or clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. ; , 2011 WL 2413492, at *1. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the stringent standards of Rule 60(b) for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying him counsel. This Court granted Plaintiff pauper status, andin theirs ianlidaigence weighs in his favor. (Rec. doc. 7). And while the Court originally relied, , on the fact that there was no evidence to indicate whether Plaintiff had made any effort to secure counsel himself, Plaintiff now submits exhibits that he did seek outside counsel, who declined to represent him. (Rec. doc. 27-1). However, these exhibits do not change the Court’s ultimate conclusion that this is not a complex case; it is fact-driven and only involves the underlying medical services that Plaintiff received at the Jail, medical services about which Plaintiff is familiar. The underlying facts of his medical treatment are already known to Plaintiff, and he has demonstrated that he will be able to present his case adequately. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Plaintiff has drafted his complaint (rec. doc. 4-1), a motion for a preliminary injunction (rec. doc. 9), his first motion to appoint counsel, a motion to compel discovery (rec. doc. 21), and the instant motion for reconsideration. (Rec. doc. 27). Plaintiff’s main complaint is that he has very limited access to the law library or “inmate counsel” at the Jail. But that is true for the majority of inmates at prisons across the United States, and if this Court were to find that as a basis for the appointment of counsel, such a finding would eviscerate the requirement that “exceptional circumstances” exist to appoint counsel. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is able to enunciate the facts underlying his Section 1983 claim, and the Court does not find that counsel would be of assistance to it. Plaintiff has not met a factor under the Fifth Circuit’s test for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), and reconsideration is thus unwarranted. I I I. Conclusion FITo rI tSh eO fRoDreEgRoEinDg reasons, thDatE tNhIeE DReconsider Motion [sic] for Appointment of Counsel or Assistance (rec. doc. 27) is . 30th March New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2023. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNIT ED ST ATES M AGIST RATE JUDGE