Cook v. Torres
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-01370
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cook v. Torres, Judge Hamilton granted in part a recording-related motion, denied motions to compel, and denied amendment of a self-represented civil-rights complaint.
David L. Cook, the Antioch defendants, and Cook’s wife were affected. Cook received a limited additional opportunity to address the dispatch recordings, the Antioch defendants were ordered to make the recordings available for the court’s review, and Cook could not add his wife’s claim to his case.
What happened
David L. Cook v. Marcos Torres, et al., concerns Cook’s self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under a federal civil-rights law. Cook alleges that police officers illegally searched him on four occasions. The defendants argued that some searches were allowed because Cook was on probation and that another claim for money damages was barred because he pleaded no contest to a charge arising from the fourth search. The defendants’ motions asking the court to rule without a trial were still pending; this order did not decide them.
Cook asked for recordings of police dispatch communications and moved to compel the defendants to provide them. The Antioch defendants had provided the recordings in several ways, including through computer links and, at Cook’s request, a thumb drive. The court denied the motions to compel but gave Cook one final opportunity to submit a supplemental response addressing the recordings if they were relevant to the pending motions.
The court granted in part Cook’s motion for reconsideration concerning the recordings and set deadlines for Cook and the Antioch defendants. It denied Cook’s motion to amend his complaint to add a claim belonging to his wife because a self-represented, non-lawyer litigant cannot represent another person. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
The detailed version
- Cook v. Torres · No. 4:19-cv-01370
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 11, 2021
Background
David L. Cook, a former county detainee and current federal prisoner, is representing himself in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cook alleges that police officers illegally searched him on four occasions: October 3, 2018, by Concord Police, and August 16, 2018, October 15, 2018, and January 9, 2019, by Antioch Police. The defendants argued that Cook was on court-ordered probation during the first three searches, making those searches legal under the circumstances. They also argued that Cook’s claim for money damages arising from the January 9, 2019 search was barred because he pleaded no contest to a charge from that search.
The defendants had filed motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request for judgment without a trial when the moving party claims the undisputed evidence requires that result. This order addressed Cook’s motions concerning dispatch recordings and his motion to amend; it did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motions.
Dispatch recordings
The Antioch defendants provided available dispatch recordings to Cook on a disc, later identified a third recording, and sent computer links. After Cook reported difficulty accessing the links, the defendants contacted Cook’s friend, sent additional links, and, on May 26, 2021, sent a thumb drive containing the recordings at Cook’s request.
The court stated that the recordings were not needed for much of the summary-judgment briefing and that their relevance was questionable. Cook had already filed two rounds of responses. The court had ordered him to file a response without the recordings and allowed a supplemental response if the recordings proved relevant.
The court denied Cook’s motions to compel, docket numbers 111 and 116, because the Antioch defendants had made substantial efforts to provide the recordings and Cook had not sufficiently explained why he could not access them or what efforts he had made to listen to them. The court nevertheless granted in part Cook’s motion for reconsideration concerning the recordings, docket number 110. Cook was allowed to file one supplemental response addressing only the recordings by July 9, 2021, with no further extensions. The Antioch defendants were ordered to provide the court with a thumb drive or another way to review the recordings by July 2, 2021. If they used a web link, it could not expire for three months.
Motion to amend
Cook sought to amend his complaint to add a claim belonging to his wife against another defendant. The court denied that motion, docket number 121. It explained that a non-lawyer representing himself may conduct his own case but may not represent another person or assert that person’s constitutional claims. The court stated that Cook’s wife could file a separate case, while noting that the time limit for filing might already have expired.
Disposition
The court granted in part Cook’s motion for reconsideration regarding the dispatch recordings, denied his motions to compel, and denied his motion to file an amended complaint. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order on June 11, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.