Wright v. Garrigan

Background

William L. Wright filed this self-represented civil action against Shannon Garrigan, identified as a San Quentin State Prison physician, and John Dowbak, identified as a San Joaquin General Hospital doctor. Wright alleged that medical treatment for his right hand and wrist between January 27, 2023, and November 7, 2023, violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on deliberate indifference to an incarcerated person’s serious medical needs.

The court initially dismissed Wright’s complaint with permission to amend because the treatment described in the complaint contradicted his allegation that the defendants routinely delayed treatment or disregarded a ligament tear. After Wright filed an amended complaint that made only slight changes and still did not state a cognizable claim for relief, the court dismissed the action with prejudice in a detailed order.

Request for reconsideration

Wright asked the court to vacate the dismissal. He argued that an incompetent jailhouse lawyer had failed to correct the deficiencies identified by the court. He also argued that the court should have appointed counsel at the pleading stage because his claims involved delayed medical treatment and malpractice, and that dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion.

The court explained that reconsideration after a final order may be sought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which concerns altering or amending a judgment, or Rule 60(b), which concerns relief from a judgment. Reconsideration may be appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. It may not be used to raise arguments or submit evidence that could reasonably have been presented earlier.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Wright had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also rejected the argument that dismissal was manifestly unjust because Wright needed appointed counsel or relied on a jailhouse lawyer.

The court stated that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel unless losing the case could result in the litigant’s physical liberty being taken away. Appointment of counsel is discretionary and requires exceptional circumstances. The court must consider both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, viewed together. The court found no exceptional circumstances here and noted that, at the pleading stage, the likelihood of success can be difficult to determine.

The court further held that reliance on a jailhouse lawyer did not make the dismissal unjust. Wright remained responsible for the pleadings submitted to the court, whether prepared by a lawyer, a jailhouse lawyer, or Wright himself. The court also concluded that the decisions Wright cited did not support vacating the dismissal. It distinguished Powell v. Basto because the circumstances there differed, and it found Tacho v. Martinez inapplicable because that case involved a habeas proceeding.

Disposition

The court DENIED Wright’s request for reconsideration. The denial is without prejudice to Wright filing a renewed motion for reconsideration accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint so the court can evaluate whether he can state a cognizable claim. The case remains closed, and the order terminated the request identified as ECF No. 12.