Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01975/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01975-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FLOREZ, et al,

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL 

(Doc. 104).

On January 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed his sixth request for appointed counsel. (Doc. 104). 

Plaintiff’s motion comes one week after the filing of his prior motion for appointed counsel. 

(Docs. 97 and 100). For the reasons previously stated in the five prior orders denying Plaintiff’s 

request and the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s sixth motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.

In the five days since the Court last reviewed Plaintiff’s case, it has not found any 

additional information that would render the case exceptional. Likewise, Plaintiff continues to 

demonstrate that he is able to articulate numerous arguments regarding his claims. 

As before, Plaintiff continues to claim that his ability to litigate his case is being 

obstructed. (Doc. 104). He blames the Court for returning a subpoena he submitted for signature 

and contends that he has failed to receive discovery responses and certifications of medical 

records. (Doc. 104). The Court reminds Plaintiff that the fact that a licensed attorney may be 

able to navigate the legal system better than Plaintiff, unfortunately for Plaintiff, that is not the 

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 106 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

standard. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). As set forth in the Court’s 

prior rulings, Plaintiff’s case is not exceptional. The fact that his medical records did not contain 

the information he sought does not change the Court’s view of his case. Likewise, fact that 

Plaintiff did not receive a certification of authenticity with the records he recently received can be 

addressed through discovery with Defendants. (Doc. 104 at 2). 

For the foregoing reasons IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. However, Plaintiff is advised that his 

continued filing of frivolous motions will result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and and 

including dismissal of this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 106 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2