Fernandez v. Duarte

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRANK J. FERNANDEZ, Case No.: 22-cv-446-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 27] E. DUARTE, Defendant.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is before the Court. See Doc. No. 27. This Court may amend or reconsider prior orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. But reconsideration is a drastic remedy, and it is only appropriate when there was clear error in a previous order, newly discovered evidence merits reconsideration, or there has been a change in controlling law. See Carrol v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff’s Motion repeats the same arguments he made in his first Motion to appoint counsel, that his case is “complex,” he is not sufficiently sophisticated to litigate it without the help of an attorney, his incarceration prevents him from adequately litigating his case, and an appointed lawyer would streamline these proceedings. Compare Doc. No. 27 with Doc. No. 21. The Court has already rejected these arguments. See Doc. No. 22. Nothing in || plaintiff's Motion presents the kind of changed circumstances that warrant reconsideration || of the Court’s prior Order. The motion is DENIED.

3 IT ISSO ORDERED ||Dated: October 20, 2023 Ye Kx) 5 G Y Sa 6 Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford , United States Magistrate Judge