Opinion
2:16-cv-00599-JAD-GWF
06-13-2016
Arthur Daniel Mayo, Petitioner v. Brian Williams, et al., Respondents
Order Denying Motion to Reconsider
[ECF No. 20]
On June 7, 2016, I denied Mayo's request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this § 2254 action finding that his claims are not sufficiently complex to warrant appointment of counsel. Respondents then moved to dismiss Mayo's petition. The deadline for opposing respondents' dismissal motion has expired and Mayo has not filed a response; he has instead filed a motion for reconsideration of my order denying his request for court-appointed counsel. Mayo argues that reconsideration is warranted because there are inadequate legal resources at the prison where he is incarcerated.
ECF No. 15.
ECF No. 16.
ECF No. 20.
I construe Mayo's motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. The Rule, however, "is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice" and only in "extraordinary circumstances." "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."
Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). --------
Mayo has given me no valid reason to reconsider my previous order and I still find that this habeas case is not unusually complex and Mayo has demonstrated that he is able to represent himself, so appointment of counsel is not warranted. I therefore deny Mayo's motion for reconsideration. Because this motion was pending when the deadline to respond to respondents' dismissal challenge expired, I sua sponte extend the time for Mayo to respond to September 23, 2016.
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mayo's motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 20] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mayo will have until September 23, 2016, to respond to respondents' motion to dismiss. The April 20, 2016, scheduling order [ECF No. 5] remains in effect in all other respects.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2016.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge