ORDER

EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Andres Reyes, who is confined in a Maricopa County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against individual City of Phoenix police officers (Doc. 1). The Court ordered Defendant Colclough to answer Count One and Defendant Howard to answer Count Two (Doc. 5 at 11). On June 26, 2019, Defendants filed their Amended Answer to Complaint (Doc. 16). All issues are joined. A scheduling Order has been issued (Doc. 13).

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 9) which the Court denied (Doc. 10). On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.27), reiterating the reasons for relief which he previously set forth in his first Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Court will consider Plaintiff's second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 27) to be a motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 27, 2019 Order (Doc. 10) denying relief.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) ("The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence").

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any basis which warrants reconsideration of the Court's prior order denying the request to appoint counsel. Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence, nor evidence which materially demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits. Having failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration, and to how that exceptional circumstances are present, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 27), which the Court considers as a motion for reconsideration, is denied.