IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 10, 2012
LUIS CASTRO, PLAINTIFF,
BROCK RESSING; ET AL.,
On January 18, 2012, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. On March 8, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. Local Rule 303(b), states "rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen (14) days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties . . . ." Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order of January 18, 2012 is therefore untimely.
Nonetheless, given the court's interest in resolving issues on the merits, the court has considered plaintiff's request. The magistrate judge's order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Local Rule 303(f). The court notes that in his request for reconsideration, plaintiff contends he "lacks command of the English language" (ECF 21), while in his original motion plaintiff sought counsel more generally, because of his "trouble understanding . . . how to go about it" (ECF 17). "[T]here is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation." Santos v. Grounds, No. C 08-3199 JSW (PR), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30200, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (denying plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel where plaintiff alleged he was not fluent in English). Rather, requests to appoint counsel "are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances." United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances here.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 8, 2012 request for reconsideration (ECF 21) is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.