Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kelvin X. Singleton v. Hedgepath

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 6, 2011

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HEDGEPATH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR FOR COURT- APPOINTED EXPERT WITNESS (Doc. 105.)

I. BACKGROUND

Kelvin X. Singleton ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 18, 2008. (Doc. 1.)

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which was denied by the Court on May 21, 2010. (Docs. 66, 68.) On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order. (Doc. 105.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests appointment of an expert witness.

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." L.R. 230(j).

Plaintiff argues that the Court should appoint counsel for him because his circumstances have changed. Plaintiff anticipates his participation in a deposition and maintains he does not have the evidence required to respond. Plaintiff claims that defendants are harassing him, denying him writing paper and copies, interfering with his outgoing mail, and denying him access to his medical files. Also, Plaintiff has vision loss which is not improving.

Plaintiff has not set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff's case is not exceptional, and the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration shall be denied.

III. MOTION FOR EXPERT WITNESS

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a court-appointed expert witness to testify in his case. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted), and the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for appointment of an expert witness in Plaintiff's case. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for a court-appointed expert witness shall be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, for appointment of an expert witness, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

220hhe

20110506

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.