Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01975/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01975-27/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 DIRECTIVE TO

CEASE REFERRING TO LOPEZ V. 

COOK

(Doc. 99)

On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Plaintiff’s Directive to Cease 

Referring to Lopez v. Cook Determination.” (Doc. 99). In his motion, Plaintiff demands that the 

Court stop citing to and relying upon the language used in Lopez v. Cook 2:03-cv-1605, as he 

believes it is not valid authority. (Doc. 99). Plaintiff seems to further contend that the Court’s 

improper reliance upon such language warrants reconsideration of the District Judge’s November 

11, 2012 order denying his prior motion for reconsideration of the order denying counsel. (Doc. 

99). 

Just as this Court cannot instruct Plaintiff about which cases he may or may not cite, 

Plaintiff cannot demand that this Court only cite cases he believes to be relevant. Furthermore, it 

is not this Court’s responsibility to educate Plaintiff on the legal issues decided in Plaintiff’s prior 

cases. However, in an effort to save this Court from having to respond to further frivolous 

motions on this issue, the Court advises Plaintiff that the Ninth Circuit decision in Lopez v. Cook

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 101 Filed 01/03/13 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

2:03-cv-1605 (see doc. 337) appointed counsel on appeal to merely “assist the court.” It did not 

find Plaintiff’s case to be extraordinary, nor did the Ninth Circuit criticize any of the reasoning 

used by the District Court in denying Plaintiff’s request for counsel. (Id.) Thus, this Court’s 

citations to Lopez v. Cook 2:03-cv-1605, to which Plaintiff refers, are proper and are not a basis 

for a further motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration regarding his 

motion for appointment of counsel has been reviewed and decided.

For the foregoing reasons IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Directive to Cease 

Referring to Lopez v. Cook Determination” is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:08-cv-01975-LJO-JLT Document 101 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2