Lopez v. Peterson, et al

Filing 337

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/27/2011 denying 335 Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 336 Motion for Clarification; within 30 days, plaintiff shall file either (a) an opposition to the 4/14/2011 Motion to Dimiss, or (b) a statement indicating that plaintiff's 4/26/2011 filing serves as his opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed withouth prejudice. (Waggoner, D)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDREW RICK LOPEZ, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-98-2111 LKK EFB P vs. D. PETERSON, et al., 14 Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dckt. No. 333. On 18 April 26, 2011, plaintiff filed a request for court to appoint counsel, as well as a request that the 19 court sanction the defendants for filing a motion to dismiss. Dckt. No. 335. On May 6, 2011, 20 defendants requested clarification regarding plaintiff’s April 26th filing. Dckt. No. 336. 21 Specifically, defendants request that either the court or plaintiff clarify whether the April 26th 22 filing will serve as plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 1 1 I. Plaintiff’s Request for Counsel 2 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in 3 section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 4 exceptional circumstances, the court may request counsel voluntarily to represent such a 5 plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood 6 v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The court finds that there are no 7 exceptional circumstances in this case. 8 2. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions and Defendants’ Request for Clarification 9 Plaintiff requests that the court sanction defendants on the ground that their motion to 10 dismiss “is replete with falsehood and misrepresentations.” Dckt. No. 335 at 1. Plaintiff states 11 that he is currently unable to address defendant’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, but requests 12 that the court deny defendants’ motion on the grounds that it is “frivolous, malicious, and 13 harrassing [sic].” Id. at 1, 16. Plaintiff also asks the court to recommend that defense counsel’s 14 license to practice law be revoked. Id. at 16. 15 Plaintiff’s request for sanctions lacks merit and will be denied. Additionally, defendants’ 16 request for clarification is understandable. Plaintiff implies that his April 26th filing is not his 17 opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, yet many of the arguments raised therein could be 18 appropriately raised in an opposition, and plaintiff also requests that defendants’ motion to 19 dismiss be denied. See Dckt. No. 335. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff 30 days to file 20 either an opposition the April 14, 2011 motion to dismiss, or a statement indicating that his 21 April 26th filing serves as his opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that; 23 1. Plaintiff’s March 26, 2011, request for appointment of counsel and for sanctions is 24 denied. 25 //// 26 //// 2 1 2. Defendants’ May 6, 2011 request for clarification is granted in that within 30 days, 2 plaintiff shall file either (a) an opposition the April 14, 2011 motion to dismiss, or (b) a 3 statement indicating that plaintiff’s April 26th filing serves as his opposition to the pending 4 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 5 that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See E.D. Cal. L. R. 110, 230(l). 6 DATED: May 27, 2011. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?