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.

Hasan v. Johnson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 1, 2013

JAWWAAD HASAN, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND REQUESTS (ECF No. 107, 111, 115, 122, 123, 125)

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

This action is set for jury trial on January 28, 2014, before the Honorable Michael J. Seng.

At an October 25, 2013, telephonic Pretrial Conference the Court considered, heard argument on, and ruled on the following miscellaneous pending motions and issues: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 111); Plaintiff's request for an expert witness (ECF Nos. 115, 116, 122, 125); Plaintiff's request to add additional claims and defendants (ECF No. 122); Plaintiff's request to bring to trial incarcerated witnesses (ECF No. 107); Defendant Johnson's motion for an in camera review of documents (ECF No. 125); and Plaintiff's request for additional discovery to include the personnel files of Defendant Johnson's potential trial witnesses (ECF Nos. 107, 123).

I. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HIS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the Court's previous decisions to deny his motions for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff alleges that his various medical conditions prevent him from properly litigating this case on his own.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. Harvest v. Castro , 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. Id . (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion, " and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion."

"A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law, " Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co. , 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation..." of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision, " United States v. Westlands Water Dist. , 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

Plaintiff has not provided new evidence, shown that the Court committed clear error, or pointed to a change in the controlling law. It remains that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v. Rowland , 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Moreover, Plaintiff continues to shepherd this case through the system and although everyone will generally benefit from the assistance of experienced trial counsel, Plaintiff has shown an ability to pursue his case on his own. He is free to retain counsel of his choosing, but the Court is unable to appoint counsel to represent him free of charge at this time.

II. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXPERT WITNESS

Plaintiff has made a belated request to subpoena an incarcerated former medical doctor, James Daly, to testify at trial as an expert medical witness. (ECF No. 115, 116, 122.) Defendant Johnson objects that Daly is neither a percipient witness nor qualified to give expert medical opinion testimony. (ECF No. 121.) Plaintiff replies that Daly has reviewed, or can review, Plaintiff's medical records relevant to this case and is sufficiently trained and experienced to opine on their contents and, specifically, as to what they reflect about the nature of Plaintiff's injuries and the forces necessary to produce such injuries.

Without ruling on the witness's competence to testify as an expert witness or in the manner described, the Court will tentatively order him to be produced for trial subject to the following conditions: Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall provide Defendant Johnson a copy of the medical records Inmate Daly has reviewed or will review; Defendant Johnson may depose inmate Daly prior to the start of trial in this matter provided Plaintiff is allowed to attend the deposition either in person or telephonically and ask follow up questions to defense counsel's questions; and, Defendant retains the right to move in limine to preclude or restrict testimony from the witness.

III. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ADD ADDITIONAL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff has submitted an addendum to his pretrial order in which he requests to add additional claims and defendants to this action. (ECF No. 122.) All deadlines for such amendment having long ago passed and their being no good cause, or any ...


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.