Sonier v. CDCR

Background

The defendants asked for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion, meaning a motion seeking to resolve the case or claims without a trial. The parties were continuing discovery. Sonier separately requested a one-year stay, or pause, while he received higher-level care at his correctional institution, and asked the court to appoint a lawyer because of his mental-health conditions.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. Under federal law, a court may request a volunteer lawyer for a person who cannot afford one, but appointment generally requires exceptional circumstances. The court considers the likely strength of the claims and the person’s ability to present them given the legal complexity.

The court said it could not determine at this stage whether Sonier’s claims were likely to succeed. Although it had previously found that his complaint stated legally recognizable claims, that did not mean he would prevail. Based on the record and Sonier’s filings, the court also found that he had not shown that he could not adequately present his claims. The request for appointment of counsel was DENIED.

Request for a Stay

The court stated that it has broad authority to pause proceedings but that the person requesting a stay must show that the circumstances justify one. Sonier cited depression, borderline personality, and participation in a “500-hour program.” The court found that his other stated concerns, including issues involving legal mail and the defendants’ responses to requests for admission, did not warrant a stay.

Because the case had been pending for nearly two years, Sonier’s justification was vague and general, and a stay could prejudice the defendants, the court found that he had not shown that a one-year stay was warranted. The request for a one-year stay was DENIED. The court stated that Sonier could request additional time for particular discovery or filing needs and could file a discovery motion if the parties could not resolve a dispute after trying to meet and confer.

Extension of Time

The court considered the defendants’ motion, their counsel’s supporting declaration, and Sonier’s statement that more time was needed for discovery and recovery from his mental-health issues. Finding good cause, the court GRANTED an additional 90-day extension for the parties to continue discovery.

The defendants’ dispositive motion must be filed and served no later than June 9, 2026. Any opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition is filed. The motion will be considered submitted when the reply is due. The court warned that it was unlikely to grant another extension absent an emergency.

Disposition

Judge Noél Wise granted the defendants’ request for a 90-day extension and denied Sonier’s requests for appointed counsel and a one-year stay. This order addressed scheduling and litigation-management requests; it did not decide the merits of Sonier’s underlying claims.