Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Abraham G. Pinzon v. Ron Jensen

March 20, 2012

ABRAHAM G. PINZON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
RON JENSEN, ET AL,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND TO ASSIGN LEGAL COUNSEL (Docket No. 83)

I. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Abraham G. Pinzon ("Plaintiff") initially filed suit in the small claims division of the Superior Court, County of Tuolumne against Defendants Dan Vaughn ("Vaughn") and Ron Jensen ("Jensen") for failure to pay for contractor services. On January 22, 2007, the court ruled against Plaintiff. (Doc. 28.)

On October 14, 2009, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant action. (Docs. 1, 2.) The complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend, and a First Amended Complaint was filed on March 6, 2009, against Defendants Jensen, Ron Jensen Construction ("Jensen Construction"), Vaughn, and Pinecrest Market ("Pinecrest"). (Docs. 7, 9.) Only Vaughn and Pinecrest answered; however, Plaintiff has not obtained default against Jensen or Jensen Construction. (Docs. 18, 21, 38.)

On November 23, 2009, Chief District Judge Anthony W. Ishii ruled on the motions to dismiss brought by Vaughn and Pinecrest, dismissing without leave to amend all but two of Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. 33.)

On May 19, 2011, Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 69.) Plaintiff sought reconsideration, which was denied by Chief District Judge Ishii on August 15, 2011. (Doc. 75.) On the same day, Chief District Judge Ishii granted the motions for summary judgment brought by Vaughn and Pinecrest as to the remaining claims. (Doc. 76.) The Court then ordered that Plaintiff take action with respect to his suit against Jensen and Jensen Construction. (Doc. 80.) Plaintiff failed to do so, and a hearing regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution was scheduled for February 21, 2012. (Doc. 81.)

On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed three motions: a motion to amend the complaint and assign legal counsel (Doc. 83), a motion to vacate the order on the motion for reconsideration for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 84), and a motion to vacate the order granting the motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 85.) On February 17, 2012, Chief District Judge Ishii vacated the February 21, 2012, hearing and denied Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of appointment of counsel and for vacating the summary judgment. (Doc. 87.) Judge Ishii referred the instant motion to amend to Magistrate Judge Oberto for consideration. (Doc. 87.)

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Complaint and to Assign Legal Counsel to Execute Process to Finality Reconsideration" is DENIED.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's motion, labeled "Motion to Amend Complaint and to Assign Legal Counsel to Execute Process to Finality Reconsideration," does not clearly set forth what court action Plaintiff is seeking, but appears solely to be a request to assign legal counsel. (Doc. 83.) Although the motion's caption states that this is also a motion to amend the complaint, Plaintiff does not articulate what amendment he seeks. (See Doc. 83.)

A. Plaintiff's Request to Assign Counsel is Denied

This is Plaintiff's fourth request that the Court assign counsel. Plaintiff's first motion for appointment of counsel was denied on May 19, 2011. (Doc. 69.) Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 15, 2011. (Doc. 75.) Plaintiff's additional motion for reconsideration (Doc. 84), filed concurrently with the instant motion, was denied on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 87.)

The Court has ruled, repeatedly, that Plaintiff is not entitled to the assignment of counsel in this action. (Docs. 69, 75, 87.) Although Plaintiff disagrees with that ruling, Plaintiff's disagreement is not grounds for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Local Rule 230(j); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). C h i e f District Judge Ishii has also affirmed that "[t]here is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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