Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-1555-D.
August 6, 2004
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court Appointed Attorney, filed August 2, 2004. Based on the motion and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Dallas County Jail. On July 10, 2003, Plaintiff filed this civil rights action alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights by denying him access to medical care while in custody and overcharging inmates for telephone calls, among other allegations. On July 6, 2004, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, finding that Plaintiff's cause of action did not rise to the necessary level of complexity to warrant the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff appeared able to adequately prosecute his case at this stage, the case did not appear to require more than the usual amount of investigation, and Plaintiff failed to delineate the efforts taken to secure counsel. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to reconsider the Court's prior order.II. ANALYSIS
A. Rule 54(b) Standard for Reconsideration of Interlocutory OrdersA court "has the inherent power to modify, vacate, or set aside interlocutory orders when the interests of justice require and will `often accept such motions in the interest of substantial justice.'" Group Dealer Serv., Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., 2001 WL 1910565, *3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2001) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) and Baustian v. Louisiana, 929 F. Supp. 980, 981 (E.D. La. 1996) (noting that courts often accept motions for reconsideration of judgments "as being in the interest of substantial justice"). Motions for reconsideration have a narrow purpose and are only appropriate to allow a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Hyundai Elec. Indus., Co., 50 F. Supp. 2d 619, 621 (E.D. Tex. 1999) (citations omitted); cf. California v. Summer Del Caribe, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 574, 577 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (finding that reconsideration of an interlocutory order may be justified "on the basis of an intervening change in the law, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice"). Reconsideration has been permitted in cases where new evidence was discovered or where there was a change in the law. See Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 1289, 1295 (E.D. Wis. 1995) (granting reconsideration where case had remained pending before court for several years, and in the interim, new evidence was discovered and case law changed); Summer Del Caribe, Inc., 821 F. Supp. at 574, 578 (granting reconsideration where the court's ruling on an issue was inconsistent with decisions of other courts addressing same issue as well as with Congressional intent); Gridley v. Cleveland Pneumatic Co., 127 F.R.D. 102, 103-104 (M.D. Pa. 1989) (granting reconsideration on basis of newly discovered evidence). A ruling should only be reconsidered where the moving party presents substantial reasons for requesting reconsideration. Baustian, 929 F. Supp. at 981; Louisiana v. Sprint Communications Co., 899 F. Supp. 282, 284 (M.D. La. 1995).
In the instant case, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration sets forth no newly discovered evidence, alleges no intervening change in the law, and does not claim clear error or manifest injustice. Instead, Plaintiff merely attempts to distinguish the cases cited by this Court in a second attempt to argue the same points he has alleged in previous pleadings. Plaintiff has provided the Court with the name of an attorney he unsuccessfully attempted to retain. However, this fact alone is insufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court Appointed Attorney is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.