Lopez v. Lee

Background

Andrew Lopez, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order addressed five requests: the defendants’ request for additional time to respond to Lopez’s requests for admissions; the defendants’ request to extend the deadline for filing a dispositive motion; Lopez’s request to extend his deadline to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss; Lopez’s request for appointment of counsel; and Lopez’s request for sanctions.

Lopez had served 339 requests for admissions, along with 78 requests for production of documents and interrogatories. The defendants received the discovery requests in July 2024 and requested more time to respond to the requests for admissions. Lopez opposed that request, but the court found no indication that the defendants acted in bad faith or intentionally misled him or the court. The court also found the requested extension reasonable given the volume of the discovery and the coordination required.

Rulings

The court granted the defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to Lopez’s requests for admissions. Responses served by September 16, 2024, were deemed timely.

The court granted the defendants’ unopposed request for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. The defendants were required to file that motion 90 days after the court issued its order on their partial motion to dismiss. The court also granted Lopez’s unopposed request for more time to respond to the motion to dismiss. Lopez’s opposition was due November 29, 2024, and the defendants’ reply was due December 6, 2024.

The court denied Lopez’s request for appointment of counsel. It explained that appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances, evaluated by considering the plaintiff’s likelihood of success and ability to present his claims. The court found that it was unclear whether Lopez would succeed on the merits, but that he had ably litigated the case so far. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required.

The court denied Lopez’s request for sanctions against the defendants or their counsel. It found no indication that defense counsel had filed pleadings in bad faith, made legally or factually inaccurate arguments, or refused to produce documents in bad faith. The order terminated the five docket matters identified in the order. It did not rule on the merits of Lopez’s civil-rights claims or decide the pending motion to dismiss.