Nguyen v. Biter et al
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 10 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/13/2011. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ANTHONY NGUYEN,
10
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00809-OWW-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
(Doc. 10)
12
BITER, M.D., et al.,
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Anthony Nguyen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
16
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 18, 2011. On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed an objection to the
17
Court’s order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel.
18
Although Plaintiff does not specifically seek reconsideration, to the extent his objections are
19
so construed, his motion is denied. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the ruling is not grounds for
20
reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Local Rule 230(j); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
21
Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th
22
Cir. 2008). There is no entitlement to counsel in this case, Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th
23
Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981), and at this stage in the
24
proceedings, the Court does not find that exceptional circumstances are present, Palmer, 560 F.3d
25
at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1981).
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed June 9, 2011, is HEREBY
DENIED.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
June 13, 2011
emm0d6
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
