Harold D. Harden, Plaintiff
Corrections Officer Soboro, et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOCS. 50, 93)
JENNIFER A. DORSEY JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Harold D. Harden, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections, has two cases pending before me. hi each, he has raised the issue of mental incompetence, citing his alleged schizophrenia as a reason I should reconsider the various orders denying his request for counsel.
As I recently explained in Mr. Harden's other case, the Ninth Circuit requires a showing of "substantial evidence" before the procedures to determine competency are triggered. Mr. Harden did not satisfy that burden in his other case; nor has he satisfied it here. He has not submitted any declaration of his mental incompetence. He has not provided any medical records or sworn statements by physicians. In short, he has not offered anything resembling "substantial evidence."
Harden has also not demonstrated how his motion warrants the "extraordinary remedy" of reconsideration. I denied his initial requests for counsel because counsel are appointed for indigent civil litigants only in "exceptional circumstances, " and Mr. Harden did not show that those exceptional circumstances exist here. For me to reconsider my order, Mr. Harden has to present newly discovered evidence, show how my decision was clearly erroneous, or point to a change in the controlling law. Mr. Harden has done none of these things. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is denied.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Harden's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 50] is DENIED and his Motion to Provide Decision on Motion for ...