Lopez v. Florez et al

Filing 110

ORDER Denying 108 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 01/09/2013. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW R. LOPEZ, Case No. 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 vs. 14 FLOREZ, et al, 15 (Doc. 108). Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed his seventh request for appointed counsel. (Doc. 108). 19 Plaintiff’s motion comes five days after the filing of his prior motion for appointed counsel. 20 (Docs. 104). For the reasons previously stated in the six prior orders denying Plaintiff’s request 21 and the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s seventh motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 22 In the two days since the Court last reviewed Plaintiff’s case, it has not found any 23 additional information that would render the case exceptional. Likewise, Plaintiff continues to 24 demonstrate that he is able to articulate numerous arguments regarding his claims. 25 As before, Plaintiff continues to claim that his ability to litigate his case is being 26 obstructed. (Doc. 108). In this motion, Plaintiff complains that due to the holidays the law 27 library has been closed and he has had to hand write every copy of his motion (as he has not had 28 access to a copy machine). (Doc. 108). However, the right to access a law library is not for the 1 1 purpose of using a copy machine but is, instead, limited to allowing reasonable access to the 2 Court. Moreover, once again, the Court reminds Plaintiff that the fact that a licensed attorney 3 may be able to navigate the legal system better than Plaintiff or has access to a copy machine is 4 not the standard for evaluating appointment of counsel. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 5 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). As set forth in the Court’s prior rulings, Plaintiff’s case is not exceptional 6 and the fact that Plaintiff does not have access to a copy machine does not change the Court’s 7 view of his case. This Court cautioned Plaintiff in its January 7, 2013 order denying his request 8 for counsel (which he did not wait to receive before filing his instant motion) that the continued 9 filing of frivolous motions will result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal 10 of this litigation. 11 For the reasons set forth above IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 12 appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. However, Plaintiff is instructed that 13 the filing of any further frivolous motions, like the one presently before this Court, will 14 result in sanctions and a recommendation that the matter be dismissed. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 17 January 9, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 DEAC_Signature-END: 9j7khijed 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?