Lopez v. Lee
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-03660
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lopez v. Lee, Judge Gilliam granted extensions and deposition access, denied counsel, and reset deadlines.
Andrew Lopez, the defendants, and the institutions and court personnel involved in arranging Lopez’s deposition attendance and subpoenas.
What happened
Andrew Lopez, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over events at Pelican Bay State Prison. This order addressed several scheduling, discovery, and counsel requests while the case continues.
The court granted both sides’ requests for more time related to Lopez’s second request to compel discovery and treated the filings as timely. It granted Lopez permission to attend future depositions by video conference, denied his renewed request for appointed counsel without prejudice, and granted defendants more time to file a dispositive motion.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. reset the deadlines: discovery must finish by September 30, 2025; defendants’ dispositive motion is due October 31, 2025; Lopez’s opposition is due December 1, 2025; and defendants’ reply is due December 19, 2025.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Lee · No. 4:23-cv-03660
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 16, 2025
Background
Andrew Lopez, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison while he was housed there. The order addressed requests concerning discovery deadlines, attendance at depositions, appointment of counsel, and the deadline for defendants’ dispositive motion—a motion intended to resolve the case or claims without a trial.
Rulings on Extensions
The court granted, effective as of the earlier date, defendants’ request for additional time to oppose Lopez’s second motion to compel discovery. It also granted Lopez’s request for additional time to file his reply supporting that motion. The court deemed defendants’ opposition and Lopez’s reply timely filed.
The court also granted defendants’ second request for additional time to file their dispositive motion. It reset the schedule so that discovery must conclude by September 30, 2025; defendants must file their dispositive motion by October 31, 2025; Lopez must respond by December 1, 2025; and defendants must file any reply by December 19, 2025.
Appointment of Counsel
The court denied Lopez’s renewed request for appointed counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. It stated that Lopez had ably litigated the case so far, that it was unclear whether he would succeed on the merits, and that his allegations of discovery obstruction and misleading evidence were unfounded. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances require it.
Depositions and Subpoenas
The court granted Lopez’s request to attend any depositions taken by defendants. It ordered defendants to give him timely notice and to work with the institution where he is incarcerated to facilitate his attendance. The court requested that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ensure Lopez’s presence by video conference and ordered the Clerk to send a copy of the order to the litigation coordinator at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center.
The court also ordered the Clerk to send Lopez ten copies of the court’s subpoena form.
Disposition
The court granted the extension requests, granted Lopez’s request to attend depositions and for orders facilitating his attendance, denied Lopez’s renewed request for appointed counsel without prejudice, and reset the briefing schedule. The order terminated Docket Nos. 58, 60, 61, 63, and 64. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.