Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0366 SECTION "J" (3)
March 1, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Samuel Michael Schildkraut's Motion to Reconsider this Court's February 17, 2004 order denying his request for appointment of counsel. For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiff has not appealed the undersigned Magistrate Judge's order to the district judge; rather, the plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy which courts should use sparingly. Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1, p. 124; Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E. D. La. 2/3/98); Bardwell v. George G. Sharp, Inc., 1995 WL 517120 (E. D. La. 8/30/95). The Fifth Circuit instructs that the Rule 59(e) standard favors the denial of a motion to alter or amend judgment. See Southern Contractors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Company, 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993). Courts typically consider several factors in exercising their discretion on a motion to reconsider, to wit: (1) whether the order should be amended to correct an error of law or fact so as to prevent manifest injustice; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) an intervening change in the controlling law. See, e. g., Motiva Enterprises LLC v. Wegmann, 2001 WL 246414 (E. D. La. 3/12/2001); Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 WL 6269 (E. D. La. 1/5/2000); Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E, D. La. 2/3/98). None of these factors favor reconsideration in this particular case.
Neither complexity of the issues, the plaintiff's indigence nor his likely inability to retain counsel make this an exceptional case, warranting the appointment of counsel. All of the plaintiff's pleadings, applications and/or motions filed with the Court are comprehensible, timely and deal with relevant issues. Moreover, a pro se plaintiff's pleadings and other applications are broadly construed, so as to effect substantial justice. The plaintiff has brought to this Court's attention no physical or mental disability which will compromise his efforts to prosecute his retaliation claims against the defendants in this case.
A motion for reconsideration should not be used to relitigate issues that were resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction or simply to secure a rehearing. See, e.g., Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum, 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986); Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 WL 6269 (E. D. La. 1/5/2000); Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 1999 WL 777720 (E. D. La. 9/29/99). For reasons set forth above and in the Court's February 17, 2004 Order and Reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge reiterates that this is not the type of extraordinary case in which appointment of counsel is necessary to assist with presentation of the issues at this stage of the proceedings.
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to the Court's orders denying appointment of counsel and reconsideration must be: (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served within ten days after being served with a copy of this order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.1(a), 6(b) and 72(b). A party's failure to object bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge; and (2) appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.